If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those onvisa waiver
Secret Asian Man wrote:
Why is the United States of America practically the only country in the western world to experience such non-internal threats? Because the US is the largest, most powerful democracy. India is the largest democracy (by population). Being an armed democracy is far from being the reason why Islamic fundamentalists have an axe to grind with the US (but it's the most popular reason for the home front). Being an armed democracy that's dependent on oil supply and oil prices (which influence other enery prices like natural gas - which heat homes that voters live in) is the underlying reason. Or more specifically US foreign policy wrt meddling in the affairs of certain arab countries. One-sided support for Israel doesn't help. (US invaded Iraq in the name of "enforcing" UN resolutions - but ignores the UN resolutions that Israel violates). Right or wrong, we represent the western infidel in their eyes. Especially when you occupy their land (Saudi Arabia) - their holy land, their mecca, with thousands of troops, for years after the gulf war, even though Saudia Arabia was never threatened by Iraq before or after the gulf war. Fix the problem, not the symptoms. Ask your leaders why others want to inflict harm upon you. First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. If that was a reason then the planes on 9-11 would have flown straight into down-town Amsterdam because where else on earth can you find such a concentration of western decadence of prostitution and drug use? Only ignorant, arrogant americans believe the US is the only bastion of democracy and good living. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Because the US has a long history of supporting puppet gov'ts in the region - gov'ts that brutalize their own citizens while getting arms and support from the US. Egypt continues to be one example. Hussein was a friend of the US when you lost control of Iraq during the embarrasing Islamic uprising and hostage taking. You made mistakes with and lost control of Iran, you found a new friend in Saddam Hussein, then you lost control of him and now you're in a quagmire in Iraq and now that you've moved your troops out of Saudia Arabia you will soon lose influence over that country as it disintigrates into Islamic Fundamentalism and they will squeeze America's oil-drinking balls in a vice when they cut oil production and crude prices goes through the roof. the nation of Israel Who in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq were adament that they were not the cause because they do not fear Saddam but we now know they were so afraid of Iraq and Saddam that they were planning to asassinate him in 1993. In particular, al Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War. As did most of the citizens of those countries. Perhaps you want to explain why the troops continued to be there? Reading that one would have to conclude that al Qaeda is at war with every western democracy in the world. A popular myth designed to make the US population believe they are not being conspicuously singled out by Al Qaeda. What part of "the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam" do you not understand? What part of "they don't care what you do in your own country but when you occupy their most holy lands with military troops you become an infidel in their country" don't you understand? the demands of the Islamo-fascists in order to remain at peace is not an acceptable solution for me and my family. They why don't you keep your nose out of their countries and let them govern themselves? Why did you install the Shaw of Iran? Why did you support Saddam Hussein with weapons and chemicals and a hand-shake from Donald Rumsfeld? Why do you pay the gov't of Egypt billions of dollars and give them lots of arms so they can remain in power? How's the democracy coming in Kuwait? You know, the country you "liberated" 10 years ago? Have they had election yet? Perhaps it is for yours. As a Canadian I've never felt threatened by Al Qaeda or Iraq. I hope you enjoy your gov't ****ing away your tax dollars on thousands of cruise missles that bombarded Iraq and on the cost of maintaining 150k troops in Iraq. You're going bankrupt as a country and soon the Mexican Peso will be worth more than your dollar. Soon it will be the Chinese that will be buying junk made in America. This is a war that will be waged for years Until it drives you bankrupt and is greater than who a particular US president is. In fact, the fate of western civilization is at stake. Yes, so long as a right-wing, evangalist republican is President. Who believe in the biblical prophesy of armageddon and Israel's role in it, and who's foreign policy is based on it. Tragically, I don't think a lot of the western world will understand this until something even more horrific than the 9/11 attacks occurs. Yea, next time a plane crashes into the Pentagon maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney will be taken out. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
"Fly Guy" schreef in bericht ... If that was a reason then the planes on 9-11 would have flown straight into down-town Amsterdam because where else on earth can you find such a concentration of western decadence of prostitution and drug use? It is a well known fact that the USA has far more drug use (per capita) than Amsterdam. As for prostitution, it is simply everywhere. Sjoerd |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
In article , Fly Guy wrote:
Secret Asian Man wrote: Why is the United States of America practically the only country in the western world to experience such non-internal threats? Because the US is the largest, most powerful democracy. India is the largest democracy (by population). India has also had a certain amount of trouble with muslim and other terrorists. India has been targeted by external terrorists and deal with an external threat in the form of the relationship with Pakistan over Kashmir. Being an armed democracy is far from being the reason why Islamic fundamentalists have an axe to grind with the US (but it's the most popular reason for the home front). Once the word fundamentalist comes into play, you can't expect that faction to be reasonable. Islamic, or any other, religious fundamentalists have problems with the US or the US government not because of the policies of the US government, but because that faction is fundamentalist or extremist. Any extreme intrepretation of anything is likely to be at odds with mainstream viewpoints, and as the US government is, in fact, representitive of the mainstream US dhmos, there are going to be extreme elements both within and outside of the US that feels that the US government or the US as a whole is an oppressor. The US also has an extremely large economy and US corporations and citizens can be found in every country in the world and that makes the US a very obvious target. France has also been the target of external terrorist threat from the same source as the US in the form of Libya. South Korea and Japan have had citizens kidnapped by the North Korean government - not just a few either, hundreds over the years. In some future time, North Korea may well attack the US because the US helps repel an armed invasion by the DPRK into the ROK. The US has had an oil embargo imposed on it after it supported Israel in a war started by or perpetuated by other nations with numerical superiority over Israel in a surprise attack on Israel. Being an armed democracy that's dependent on oil supply and oil prices (which influence other enery prices like natural gas - which heat Much of the US oil comes from Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (in that order, roughly, in 2002 at least), which are all stable and friendly supplying states, Europe is more dependent on middle eastern oil than is the US, and Japan much more so. homes that voters live in) is the underlying reason. Or more specifically US foreign policy wrt meddling in the affairs of certain arab countries. One-sided support for Israel doesn't help. (US invaded Iraq in the name of "enforcing" UN resolutions - but ignores the UN resolutions that Israel violates). Read the opinions of the Saudis whenever they talk about the US developing alternate energy sources, which many Americans would love to do: the argument goes - The best source of energy for the US is oil. Oil is efficient and american industrial processes are geared to it. If the Americans were to seek out an alternate energy source, we would lower the price of oil until that alternate energy source was not economically viable. If the US is indeed dependent on external oil, it is in part because of active encouragment and engineering by oil supplying states. If the US were to deploy a completely oil free economic system tomorrow morning, the only countries to be damaged (or devistated) economically by that would be Canada, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Right or wrong, we represent the western infidel in their eyes. Especially when you occupy their land (Saudi Arabia) - their holy land, their mecca, with thousands of troops, for years after the gulf war, even though Saudia Arabia was never threatened by Iraq before or after the gulf war. American troops are located in many dozens of countries around the world - this is hardly "occupation". US troops do indeed occupy Iraq at the moment, as the Iraqi government is under the authority of the Americans there, but Saudi Arabia was not occupied. Americans for years have been invited to Saudi Arabia to help train their "national guard" (which is more like a sort of repulbican guard or elite unit group than US national guard units would be), that was not occupation. The Saudis have asked us to leave and we're going. Saudi Arabia did, in fact, invite Americans in. That is not occupying, just as the south koreans invited americans in, and those troops are not an "occupying" force. You attempt to use the term "occpy" to imply "control of" which was not the case in the least in Saudi Arabia. Fix the problem, not the symptoms. Ask your leaders why others want to inflict harm upon you. First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. If that was a reason then the planes on 9-11 would have flown straight into down-town Amsterdam because where else on earth can you find such a concentration of western decadence of prostitution and drug use? Reno, Nevada? Only ignorant, arrogant americans believe the US is the only bastion of democracy and good living. Only (extremely) ignorant, arrogant non-americans believe that the US has been the only target of external terrorist threats. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Because the US has a long history of supporting puppet gov'ts in the region - gov'ts that brutalize their own citizens while getting arms and support from the US. Egypt continues to be one example. Hussein was a friend of the US when you lost control of Iraq during the embarrasing Islamic uprising and hostage taking. You made mistakes Hussein did not seem to consider the US a friend, even while asking for US help during the war with Iran. The US never considered him a friend the way the US would consider the UK or even France a friend - he was simply the lesser of two evils in a very bad situation. with and lost control of Iran, you found a new friend in Saddam Hussein, then you lost control of him and now you're in a quagmire in Iraq and now that you've moved your troops out of Saudia Arabia you will soon lose influence over that country as it disintigrates into Islamic Fundamentalism and they will squeeze America's oil-drinking balls in a vice when they cut oil production and crude prices goes through the roof. The US never had any influence at all over Saudi Arabia because it had troops there. The US has influence over Saudi Arabia because the US is the worlds largest economy, we are both and important market and important supplier to Saudi Arabia. I realize there is a grade-school tendency to view influence as always a negative and overwhelming factor but it is not always that way. The US used influence over Yemen when Yemen voted against the resolution authorizing force in the first gulf war by saying to Yemen "that was the most expensive vote you ever cast" - that is, the US was cutting off aid to Yemen. That's influence and it's reasonable to do: why should we give money to a group that does not support us, or is hostile to us. The US also has influence over the government of Saudi Arabia because the US supports that government, but it's silly to think that the only reason the Saudis are in power is because of US support. the nation of Israel Who in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq were adament that they were not the cause because they do not fear Saddam but we now know they were so afraid of Iraq and Saddam that they were planning to asassinate him in 1993. Israel alone could not have been the cause, if it's your all holy "oil" that was the cause. The US does support Israel, but historically never to the extreme of entering war for Israel. Israel was in a much tighter spot in 1973 without the US introducing troops into the region in Israeli defense. I'm sure that the more favorable position of Israel was considered during the pro/con decision sessions leading to the 2003 Iraq war, but was certainly not the ONLY reason or even the major reason for the war. And, anyway, perhaps the US figured that with a hostile Iraq out of the picture, Israel wouldn't have to maintain such an active, and PR-nightmare, defense posture and perhaps lead to easing of tensions in the region, in the long term. In particular, al Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War. As did most of the citizens of those countries. Perhaps you want to explain why the troops continued to be there? Did you mean to say "citizens" or "subjects" of those countries? The US maintained military contacts with Spain, France, Germany, and other countries even when (by polls) the majority of citizens in those countries did not support US bases or military contacts - however, those citizens set up a representitive government by which they elected a government to act for them. The citizens don't directly make day to day operating decisions in a representitive democracy - their representitives do, or authorize others to. The US military was in place in Saudi Arabia with the permission and invitiation of the Saudi Government. If the Saudi population feel that their government is no longer representing them properly, it is up to them to change their government, but the US did "recognize" the Saudis as the government of Saudi Arabia. As did almost all other nations of the world, and the US cannot base every policy decision it makes on the extremely ill-informed public opinion of Arabian nations when there is a government in place. Just as the US deals with the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the official and recognized government of China, for example. After the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy popular Chinese opinion might well have wanted China to break off diplomatic relations with the US, but the Chinese Government itself did not wish to take things to that extreme. Should the US at that point break relations with China because popular opinion in China was such that they wanted no relations with the US? Reading that one would have to conclude that al Qaeda is at war with every western democracy in the world. A popular myth designed to make the US population believe they are not being conspicuously singled out by Al Qaeda. No comment there. I've never spoken to a representive of Al Qaeda and can't guess their motives in target selection. What part of "the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam" do you not understand? What part of "they don't care what you do in your own country but when you occupy their most holy lands with military troops you become an infidel in their country" don't you understand? What part of "we were invited" don't you understand? You know, many (MANY) Americans feel that NAFTA is a disaster for everyone involved, that American universities have far, FAR too many foreigners in them already and that the US should outright close its borders and throw every non-citizen out. However, public opinion aside our representive government has authorized foreign citizens to work and study and live in the US, for many reasons. Should the Saudi or Canadian government be sensitive to "US popular opinion" and forbid their citizens from working or studying in the US? Of course not. Popular opinion often varies considerably from rational, studied government opinion. That's part of why we elect governments. the demands of the Islamo-fascists in order to remain at peace is not an acceptable solution for me and my family. They why don't you keep your nose out of their countries and let them govern themselves? Why did you install the Shaw of Iran? Why did you support Saddam Hussein with weapons and chemicals and a hand-shake from Donald Rumsfeld? Why do you pay the gov't of Egypt billions of dollars and give them lots of arms so they can remain in power? How's the democracy coming in Kuwait? You know, the country you "liberated" 10 years ago? Have they had election yet? The minute the US forcefully installed a government of any kind in Kuwait the world would be screaming about it. Part of the reason could be, though this is conjecture (but I feel free, since you also do), about Egypt was the switch of sides during the cold war of Egypt from the Soviet to US sphere of influence and as a reward to Egypt for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Incidently, in terms of popular culture, the Kuwatis I've spoken to vastly prefer their own government to the Iraqi invasion and takeover. Perhaps it is for yours. As a Canadian I've never felt threatened by Al Qaeda or Iraq. I hope you enjoy your gov't ****ing away your tax dollars on thousands of cruise missles that bombarded Iraq and on the cost of maintaining 150k troops in Iraq. You're going bankrupt as a country and soon the Mexican Peso will be worth more than your dollar. Soon it will be the Chinese that will be buying junk made in America. The Chinese are already buying steel made in America, and we're happy that they are. The US dollar was probably overvalued for some time and now that it is valuing to more correct levels (remember the Euro was created at about $1.19 = 1?, it's about $1.27 = 1? now - hardly a "crash" of any kind) US products are not so expensive overseas anymore and internal and external orders of US products are picking up. An overly strong dollar was hurting the US, the only advantage was when buying foreign products, they were relativly cheap. We're hardly going to go bankrupt with 1/4th the worlds gross product and an technically advanced economy at the forefront of nearly every aspect of the world economy as a whole. This is a war that will be waged for years Until it drives you bankrupt There is no doubt that it was and will continue to be a VERY expensive war. $160 billion straight out of the budget is no small amount of money over two years. But it's not like it's going to bankrupt a ten trillion dollar economy. and is greater than who a particular US president is. In fact, the fate of western civilization is at stake. Yes, so long as a right-wing, evangalist republican is President. Who believe in the biblical prophesy of armageddon and Israel's role in it, and who's foreign policy is based on it. I think you've been partaking a little to much of that western decadence so often found in Amsterdam. Tragically, I don't think a lot of the western world will understand this until something even more horrific than the 9/11 attacks occurs. Yea, next time a plane crashes into the Pentagon maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney will be taken out. Or maybe in the next elections the entire administration will be out of office. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those onvisa waiver
Fly Guy wrote:
you enjoy your gov't ****ing away your tax dollars on thousands of cruise missles that bombarded Iraq and on the cost of maintaining 150k troops in Iraq. You're going bankrupt as a country and soon the Mexican Peso will be worth more than your dollar. Soon it will be the Chinese that will be buying junk made in America. It is interesting that Ronald Reagan was so happy to claim "victory" over the USSR. In reality, the USSR bankrupted itself due to military spending. And what a bankrupcy it has been. Russia is slowly transforming itself from a military power into an economic power (because of its oil). And while Euroipe is becoming a big economic pwer, the USA is losing grip of ots economy and spending too much on military. One has to wonder if a re-elected Bush regime would succeed in bankrupting the USA. Not just with military and law enforcement budgets out of this world, but also because creativity always suffers in police states and with lower creativity, the USA will not survive in this very competitve world. Will the IMF (which is really runned by large US banks) have the balls to publicly tell the USA government that it needs to make huge sacrifices to balance the budget and start paying off its debts ? Already, many countries feel much safer now that it has become apparent that the USA has overstretched its military and is in no position to invade another country. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those onvisa waiver
Vareck Bostrom wrote:
India has also had a certain amount of trouble with muslim and other terrorists. India has been targeted by external terrorists and deal with an external threat in the form of the relationship with Pakistan over Kashmir. And the USA has trouble with domestic terrorists such as the guy who blew up the building, the sniper and kid who killed many in the washington area, the many school mass murders, the california car "I'll shoot you because I don't like your face" murders etc. And you don't have to go back that far in USA history to look at the racial problems which would not be too different from muslim vs boudhist problems of india, or the republican versus british conflicts in Northern Ireland. Once the word fundamentalist comes into play, you can't expect that faction to be reasonable. Correct. That is why that guy blew up that building in the USA (forgot his name and city). And that is why you also have stuff like Waco Texas. government is, in fact, representitive of the mainstream US dhmos, there are going to be extreme elements both within and outside of the US that feels that the US government or the US as a whole is an oppressor. The problem is not what the US government does inside the USA. That may generate domestic terrorism. The problem is that the USA government insists on being the world's orchestra conductor, telling every country what to do. That pushes the wrong buttons and fuels terrorists who have a beef against the USA that wants to impose USA values on countries who don't want them. If the USA truly believes in the right to self determination, it should accept and tolerate that other countries have different values/priorities and types of government. The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz mantra goes against this, because they want to not only show that the USA still has a muscle, but also impose USA values on countries that do not want such values, as a proof that the USA can impose its values onto others. The US also has an extremely large economy and US corporations and citizens can be found in every country in the world and that makes the US a very obvious target. As long as the USA corporation adapts itsefl to the local needs of a country, then it isn't seen as such a bad citizen of that country. There are exceptions such as McDonalds because they are more than just US companies, they are "flag carriers" and symbols of the United States and they become targets no matter how well behaved they may be in that country. either, hundreds over the years. In some future time, North Korea may well attack the US because the US helps repel an armed invasion by the DPRK into the ROK. North Korea is just a puppet of the United States. The USA is pushing all the right buttons to cause North Korea to react a certain way. It was Rumsfeld who cancelled the deal Clinton had signed, which resulted in North Korea announcing it was resuming ist nuclear programme. This allowed Rumsfeld to keep North Korea into his 1998 list of "axis of Evil". And then, they planted arms shipments from Iran destined to Palestine, which the Israeli intercepted, allowing the USA to continue to claim Iran was axis of evil too. (Relations with Iran had warmed considerable in the late 1990s, so Rumsfeld had to find an excuse to portray Iran as a terrorist nation). - this is hardly "occupation". US troops do indeed occupy Iraq at the moment, as the Iraqi government is under the authority of the Americans There is no Iraqi government. Iraq is effectively considered a territory of the United States now, with no head of state of its own, thus the official head of state of Iraq is George W Bush. This was decided by the UN shortly after Bush declared his victory in May when the UN gave the USA official "invading country" status for Iraq, which gave the USA legal responsability over Iraq. While the rest of the world saw this UN as a slight punishement for the USA, Bush told americans it was vindication and that the UN finally supported his invasion. asked us to leave and we're going. Saudi Arabia did, in fact, invite Americans in. That is highly debatable. Of course, the americans will portray this as having been invited. But in reality, the americans probably blackmailed themselves into Saudi Arabia in exchange for continued oil purchases as well as helping protect Saudi Arabia from rogue governments in the Iraq/Israel corridor. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
"nobody" wrote in message
... Secret Asian Man wrote: Because the US is the largest, most powerful democracy. With a selected president, a dead opposition that has not opposed a rogue government, I would not call it a healthy democracy. Arabas doN't despise the USA because their are a democracy or because of the lifestyle inside the USA. They despise the USA because the USA is mingling in their affairs, always taking the side of Israel, defending Israel at the UN by Do you have the slightest idea how childish you sound? "They always take Israel's side! Wahh! Mommy!" Who was it that set up your hated Israel, anyway? And if Israel's the problem, why doesn't the UN resolve it? They've had 50+ years to do so. using its veto, and expecting to tell all countries how to conduct themselves. You mean like other countries telling the US how to conduct themselves? All countries do this. That's called diplomacy. This discussion is about terrorists, which you turned into a long-winded rant about your petty hates. You snipped out why Islamo-fascists hate the US. I'll repeat it: "2. Bin Laden and al Qaeda violently opposed the United States for several reasons. First, the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel, and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group. Third, al Qaeda opposed the involvement of the United States armed forces in the Gulf War in 1991 and in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 and 1993. In particular, al Qaeda opposed the continued presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere on the Saudi Arabian peninsula) following the Gulf War. Fourth, al Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to al Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or those with whom it worked. For these and other reasons, Bin Laden declared a jihad, or holy war, against the United States, which he has carried out through al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ndictment.html Now you can continue to bury your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. Lots of people are like that, which is understandable. The alternative is too horrible for them to consider. To prevent further terrorist attacks, do you believe the US should give in to al Qaeda's demands? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:46:08 GMT, wrote:
Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick. You have two very bad errors in your seond paragraph. and you want Hillary Clinton to be president. Sheesh. Pardon? "chronicalling" is not a word; and your grammar with "Our states computer" is appalling. I had just finished 12 hours fighting bush fires - give me a break. Dave ===== NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today. http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
In article , nobody
wrote: Vareck Bostrom wrote: India has also had a certain amount of trouble with muslim and other terrorists. India has been targeted by external terrorists and deal with an external threat in the form of the relationship with Pakistan over Kashmir. And the USA has trouble with domestic terrorists such as the guy who blew up the building, the sniper and kid who killed many in the washington area, the many school mass murders, the california car "I'll shoot you because I don't like your face" murders etc. And you don't have to go back that far in USA history to look at the racial problems which would not be too different from muslim vs boudhist problems of india, or the republican versus british conflicts in Northern Ireland. Yes.. Once the word fundamentalist comes into play, you can't expect that faction to be reasonable. Correct. That is why that guy blew up that building in the USA (forgot his name and city). And that is why you also have stuff like Waco Texas. Then the agreement seems to be that fundamentalists or extremists are the problem, and they view any strong representitive of the mainstream demos as an enemy? government is, in fact, representitive of the mainstream US dhmos, there are going to be extreme elements both within and outside of the US that feels that the US government or the US as a whole is an oppressor. The problem is not what the US government does inside the USA. That may generate domestic terrorism. The problem is that the USA government insists on being the world's orchestra conductor, telling every country what to do. That pushes the wrong buttons and fuels terrorists who have a beef against the USA that wants to impose USA values on countries who don't want them. It's not as if the USA doesn't have nations telling it what to do as well, through international structures and systems. The US wanted to protect steel lately through tarrifs, yet this was brought down because other nations (through the body of the WTO) told the US what to do. That is only one of very many examples. If the USA truly believes in the right to self determination, it should accept and tolerate that other countries have different values/priorities and types of government. I don't have any argument with that at all, that's completely fine by me. Other countries should accept that the US has it's own values and priorities and also accept that if the US decides not to do business with a country that has values it doesn't like (through means such as trade sanctions) that other country should except our own values on the subject. The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz mantra goes against this, because they want to not only show that the USA still has a muscle, but also impose USA values on countries that do not want such values, as a proof that the USA can impose its values onto others. Not at all, at least, that's not how I see it. I see the current administration agressivly pursuing US interests through *completely legal* means (and I will argue that the 2003 war was legal under international law, which is extremely weak and mutable law anyway) - and I don't understand why the world has such a problem with that, when they do that themselves (but since they lack the resources of the US, the scale is not as great as the US). The US also has an extremely large economy and US corporations and citizens can be found in every country in the world and that makes the US a very obvious target. As long as the USA corporation adapts itsefl to the local needs of a country, then it isn't seen as such a bad citizen of that country. There are exceptions such as McDonalds because they are more than just US companies, they are "flag carriers" and symbols of the United States and they become targets no matter how well behaved they may be in that country. It is the utmost priority of a corporation to adopt itself to the local needs of a country in as much as it is the goal of a corporation to maximize profits. This is the goal of nearly every corporation worldwide. either, hundreds over the years. In some future time, North Korea may well attack the US because the US helps repel an armed invasion by the DPRK into the ROK. North Korea is just a puppet of the United States. The USA is pushing all the right buttons to cause North Korea to react a certain way. It was Rumsfeld who No, it just seems that senior US officials have finally done a little research on North Korean negoation tactics. Anyone who has even done any reading at all on North Korea could have gotten the same responses out of them, but they are still dangerous and fairly unpredictable in some ways. I recommend "Negotiating on the Edge: North Korean Negotiating Behavior" for a good overview of their tactics, and "North Korea: Through the Looking Glass" for a more general culture study, incidently. The first book predicts more or less exactly how the DPRK would be responding to how the US is currently acting, but does stress also that the DPRK is sometimes quite unpredictable, and often times when the US simply ignores the DPRK the DPRK becomes the most dangerous. It's an interesting read at least. cancelled the deal Clinton had signed, which resulted in North Korea announcing it was resuming ist nuclear programme. This allowed Rumsfeld to keep North Korea into his 1998 list of "axis of Evil". And then, they planted arms shipments from Iran destined to Palestine, which the Israeli intercepted, allowing the USA to continue to claim Iran was axis of evil too. There is no doubt in my mind at all that the DPRK is a dangerous country under dangerous leadership, much more so than Iraq or Iran was or is. They have a very long history of dangerous behaivor throughout the cold war and on. (Relations with Iran had warmed considerable in the late 1990s, so Rumsfeld had to find an excuse to portray Iran as a terrorist nation). - this is hardly "occupation". US troops do indeed occupy Iraq at the moment, as the Iraqi government is under the authority of the Americans There is no Iraqi government. Iraq is effectively considered a territory of the United States now, with no head of state of its own, thus the official head of state of Iraq is George W Bush. Citizens of territories of the US under the US constitution have US citizenship. The US has not recognized Iraq as a territory, and the occupation system and government is little different than the occupation of Germany or Japan. Incidently, who is the chief of state of Canada? If you answered Queen Elizabeth II can you explain under your logic how Canada is not occupied by the UK and how Canada does not have its own government? This was decided by the UN shortly after Bush declared his victory in May when the UN gave the USA official "invading country" status for Iraq, which gave the USA legal responsability over Iraq. Once again, this is all "international law" which is the weakest law there is, and the most mutable. Was the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda in 1978 legal or illegal under international "law"? It could be either, depending on who you ask, but I think generally it was considered legal. Any UN applied status only has effect under the UN, which is not really a soverign body. So, who cares? While the rest of the world saw this UN as a slight punishement for the USA, Bush told americans it was vindication and that the UN finally supported his invasion. asked us to leave and we're going. Saudi Arabia did, in fact, invite Americans in. That is highly debatable. Of course, the americans will portray this as having been invited. But in reality, the americans probably blackmailed themselves "the americans probably" - that's pure conjecture and you know it. The Americans were invited and the Saudi government has said they were invited. Moreover, the Americans left when asked. It's not in the least debatable, unless you're going to start pulling out UFO conspiracy-theory level arguments. into Saudi Arabia in exchange for continued oil purchases as well as helping protect Saudi Arabia from rogue governments in the Iraq/Israel corridor. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
San Diego has a curfew law so they stop anyone who appears to be underage.
They didn't stop me (grey hair and all) ;-) Has little to do with "drinking" per se, just that there is little else to do at night in TJ for a teen-ager (they are only turned away if under 18 and not accompanied by a parent) "Sjoerd" wrote in message ... "DALing" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com schreef in bericht ... The MOST that happens is that SD police set up "minors checkpoints" usually Fri or Sat PM to stop the "under 18" set from going south to drink. Are you saying that American citizens can't go abroad when they like to? And how can the police prove that these people are planning to drink? Sjoerd |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver
not usually - they only do it at night and then usually only on FRI and SAT.
I think it's more psychological than anything else since they don't make any attempt to check people going over on a bus at night (there are cross border shuttle busses) "mrraveltay" wrote in message .. . DALing wrote: somebody better tell THAT to the folks at the borders where they DRIVE (or walk like in San Diego) across. There is NO NEED to do ANYTHING to LEAVE the US to go to Mexico - go thru a turnstile and keep going. The MOST that happens is that SD police set up "minors checkpoints" usually Fri or Sat PM to stop the "under 18" set from going south to drink. Can the San Diego police stop someone under 18 from crossing the border into Mexico? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Tourist Visa | Yaofeng | Air travel | 199 | October 8th, 2003 06:52 PM |
Thai visa costs | Tchiowa | Air travel | 0 | September 13th, 2003 06:18 AM |