US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa 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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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/

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.

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

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?