Armed Camp D.C.

[ordos45]

I was reading the New York Times online earlier, and there was a story about Washington D.C. becoming an armed camp.  Here are some excerpts, which I feel, show how far the government is going in the wrong direction.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21

[Dante]

Bomb sniffers possibly. Might find them before they are set off. The rest of it... seems like using a cup of water against a forest fire. You can't stop the inevitable.

Incidentally, what's the use of chemical/biological sniffers? By the time they've sniffed it it's been released hasn't it?

[ordos45]

I'm not sure, possibly to try and pass out emergency supplies to stem the tide or something?  Yeah bomb sniffing dogs are what I see as the most logical thing there.

[Acriku]

I don't see much wrong with anything up there. Especially the AA missiles (if actually used), having learned from 09/11.

[exatreide]

pff looks like the terrorists won, america is changing...not for the better either..

[Acriku]

Oh please, it's the only logical thing a government is supposed to do. Besides, these methods of security were instituted in certain areas before 09/11 so how exactly did the terrorists win?

[DukeLeto]

"Terrorists hate America because we are a land of freedom and opportunity ... We intend to attack the root cause of terrorism."

-Dubya

Look's like he's accomplished that much.

[Caid Ivik]

I don't see a problem, when a country drown in fear tries to maintain its security. But why they must export their fears to abroad, specifically to historical center of Bratislava?

http://www.sme.sk/clanok-1262213.html

[thomas]

terrorist hate us because we've been messing with them for over 40 years

[Acriku]

Yes Scytale, they would truly be our allies if we didn't "mess" with them for the past 40 decades. ::)

[ordos45]

Actually bin Laden at least was our ally...

[DukeLeto]

Saddam was our best friend under Reagan.  But then he stopped giving us cheap oil.

[Acriku]

Ordos45 and Duke, I don't see how it is an alliance when one side is using the other for their purposes, and the other the same. Would we go to their side in a war if it came to it, like we did for our European allies? I don't think so, which is why I don't consider any of that truly an alliance.

[DukeLeto]

Well, we did give them financial and political support when they came under fire.

[Edric O]

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were neither the first nor the last bloodthirsty murderers who carried out their repression with the backing of the US government. Does Saudi Arabia ring any bells?

The CIA also sponsored a number of coups whose purpose was to replace the democratically elected leader of a country with a pro-US dictator. See Chile as the classic example (Salvador Allende vs. Augusto Pinochet).

So whenever the US government talks about the great virtues of freedom and democracy, I can't help but laugh.

[Acriku]

True Duke Leto.

Edric, the U.S. government is not an altruistic government, and probably far from it. So, I wouldn't be surprised that it has acted contrary to its ideals.

[filecore]

Ordos45 and Duke, I don't see how it is an alliance when one side is using the other for their purposes, and the other the same.

Not the same thing.  Groups can ally for political, military, or economic purposes, without actually caring for each other.  Do you forget that Russia and the USA were also allies during the second world way?  The USA and the Taliban were later allies against the Russians.

Remember the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?  It's a sad trusim that the majority of alliances are through necessity, not desire.  Both sides use each other, be it for mutual defence or for better trading prices.  If one side wasn't gaining anything from the alliance, it would pull out.

Does Saudi Arabia ring any bells?

Yes, I seem to recall that it is the country in the middle east that has a worse government than Iraq, fewer civil liberties than Iraq, worse human treatment than Iraq, has committed more international terrorist acts than Iraq, has more (and proven!) weapons of mass destruction than Iraq... oh, and sells more oil to the USA than Iraq.  That makes them America's best friend.  There's no altruism to it whatsoever, it's pure selfishness on both parts.

bloodthirsty murderers

Ah yes, think of the Chinese Embassy, think of many places in South America and in Africa and the Middle East... and who says the USA isn't a terrorist state.

"The winners make the rules".  It's bigger and stronger and therefore, "right".

I don't see a problem, when a country drown in fear tries to maintain its security. But why they must export their fears to abroad

Not just there, to lots of places.  Wherever you find a McDonalds (and I'm from Scotland so I find the whole Scottish thing offensive, we don't use the suffix Mc-anything for things other than real, centuries-old clan names.  Talk about a cultural insult), you'll also find US paranoia also.  It's about as common round the globe these days as the other.

Oh please, it's the only logical thing a government is supposed to do.

Hmm, I'm perhaps being ni

[Dante]

Blair is looking West when he should be looking East East East...

So whenever the US government talks about the great virtues of freedom and democracy, I can't help but laugh.

True, true...

Not just there, to lots of places.  Wherever you find a McDonalds (and I'm from Scotland so I find the whole Scottish thing offensive, we don't use the suffix Mc-anything for things other than real, centuries-old clan names.  Talk about a cultural insult), you'll also find US paranoia also.  It's about as common round the globe these days as the other.

Anyway I don't really want to get into the whole "USA/rest-of-world" debate because there are too many Americans on these boards, and I'm sure I'd be swamped with pro-patriotism, unthinking replies to my perceived criticism of all things US.  I'm not a US hater, I just happen to think they do a lot of stupid, short-sighted and isolationist things.  Why their only ally happens to be the UK, I don't know.  Fucking Blair and his fucking "special relationship".

Keep in mind that a lot of Scots emmigrated to America. The names have spread, diluted, etc. They aren't ours anymore, least of all that one.

Actually there are several Americans that are very critical of their current government here, though by no means all. If Emprworm were here he'd be on to that like a shot...

[NeoLogiX]

It's all proxy war. Doing for someone.

US gov doesn't to mess with Israel, Afg & Iraq. It's THIER problem.

[Sneakgab]

A few corrupt indivuals (corrupt in order for personal gain, following of expansionist policies or even for serving their country, whatever) usually manage to throw throw the wrench into an entire country's works and put a stop to whatever nobil minded actions that may be attempted. That is why America sometimes acts contrarily to it's greatest virtues. It is why true communism has never been tried, and it is why their are still many dictators in the world.

Because it seems that all good-intentions are eventually foiled by corruption, I say: Well it's the thought that counts ;D :'(

Regarding Saudi Arabia,e.t.c though, well that was over 40 years ago and during a time where the USA were clearly led by indivuals who were ruthless in getting rid of communism... times change (Even if only because the USA are currently led by someone whose motivation is to remain in office/ will be led by someone whose motivation is to get into office... although I believe that Bush's motivations are not only remaining in  office)

As For why America dealt with Iraq before other countries who were under the tryanny of even worse dictators... There are probably many reasons. For one thing the threat of Iraq was more immediate, and for another thing Iraq was an easier target because of it's geographic location (close to Kuwait for one thing) and it also allows the USA a solid base in the middle-east. Besides, remember that according to Bush's words it seems that Iraq is one target on a list of many. (It is wise to attack only 1 country at a time, regardless of a person's motivations being good or bad)

[Anathema]

Ordos45 and Duke, I don't see how it is an alliance when one side is using the other for their purposes, and the other the same. Would we go to their side in a war if it came to it, like we did for our European allies? I don't think so, which is why I don't consider any of that truly an alliance.

America did not side with the allies when they declared war on Germany, and even recognised the collaborating Vinchy regime in France. America only joined the alliance when Japan attacked at Pearl Harbour.

Just stating facts.

[ordos45]

I don't think that's when we joined the Allies.  I think it was when Hitler declared war on us.  Technically he didn't have to go with Japan and do that, did he?

[Anathema]

Technicly yes, it was a logical consequense that Hitler sticked with Japan and declared war on the US. Japan was already at war with the European allies because it had invaded many of their colonies.

Plus America wasn't as much of a threat back then as it hadn't adapted its industry for war at that time.

And still, America didn't reach out and help the French when they were invaded were they?

[ordos45]

Nope, we tried to stick to our Non-Nuetral nuetrality.  We supply the weapons to Britain, but technically didn't fight.  Not until we became at war with Germany.

[Seal89999]

Well I voted for the AA missils for the white house and the bomb sniffing dogs. Both are practical and should already be used.