News Release

Really?

formatting link
So....it seems that Germany is just like the US in alot of respects, the police do not show up until there is a body or a crime. I feel sorry for people that allow themselves to be taken advantage of by criminals.

I have carried a weapon for the last 25 years, never had an accident. Most drunks, mad people, crazy people do not have the right to carry weapons. This right is reserved for those with clean records and that pass a stringent background check.

It IS one of our constitutional rights: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I did not see the film so I cannot answer to you.

Thank you.

The documents show that Saddam did have a relation ship with al queda, they also show that the WMD's that we thought he had, Saddam also thought he had. The documents show that we did indeed have good cause for removing Saddam.

Just like the disaster that led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall? Sometimes things are part of a larger picture. Every body at the time was pissed as hell at Reagan for his posture against the USSR but in the long term the strategy worked, to the benefoit of the world. Saddam was just a pawn in the larger picture, that is why Rumsfeld, actually the US, Rumsfeld was just a spokesman.

You call it dumb, but remember we did not start this. We did not declare war, war was declared against us.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Wishful thinking. I also wish that would work but how is that to work against a country like Iraq? One that was controlled with a strong hand by a dictator? How would that work against N Korea and kim il? What about Iran and almedijani?

I agree, the problem is that with a dictator form of government how do you win the hearts and minds of the people when dissent is punishable by death? Saddam controlled his people with fear, same with kim il. How do you win the hearts and minds when any form of dissent is crushed.

Misunderstanding? Or a unwillingness to put your actons and deeds where your mouth and heart is? Unwillingness to make tough decisions and stick by them.

Reply to
Cliff
Loading thread data ...

Of course, I mean interfere with provisions which are valid in a democracy only. Objecting is one possibility.

;-)

Keep cool. This is just a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about using brute force in any way.

On which information are you basing this view?

Yes, of course. But laws have possibilities, you can do some things with laws, other things will not work.

There is crime in spite of laws, for example.

In theory, you're right. "The difference between theory and practice is, that in theory both are equal." ;-)

This is what I'm doing now.

Yes, this is the feeling you're giving me. Sad.

No. Just read the facts, please.

Yes.

Not intentionally. And it's really not a war. I hope it will not become a war. :-((

Terrorists are a form of organized delinquency, just like the Mafia, but sometimes with political objectives.

Exceptional, yes. Having a look onto the results, then I must say: very exceptional, indeed. :-/

If many people in this company were tortured for months and all the people with a leading position looked away, and the management looked away, and after months this will come out because press is getting photos, which were shared among the employees for months, what do you think would a attorney do with the CEO of this company?

Let him say "I don't know what my people are doing at all", and that's it?

Hm... usually they come before you're dead ;-)

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

From there:

| From Workers Voice | Organ of the Communist Party of New Zealand | If the terrorist Red Army Faction killed a Bonn policeman, there would | be a swift reaction. Special action units would rush into the field. A | state of siege would be proclaimed. | But when nazis kill at least 16 people un less than 11 months, this is | treated as an everyday event in Germany.

Sorry, you did tell me about dumb propaganda. Now you're referencing dumb propaganda sources. You're even referencing sources of communist propaganda.

Please be serious.

What do you want to tell me with this source?

Of course, we have problems with criminals, too. But: usually the police comes, before you're dead. And I think, maybe this is true for the US, too, isn't it?

I believe that. I'm not talking about you here. And, BTW, I didn't want to argue here at all.

The same idea is in Switzerland, for example. There every man has a gun at home usually. But they leave it at home, because Switzerland is a very secure country, so they don't need to carry one with them. This was the reason why I was asking why you're carrying a gun.

But: forget that. It has nothing to do with our discussion here.

Sounds good.

Yes, I know. Just like it is in Switzerland.

Good cause to remove Saddam? Of course, there are good causes to remove Saddam! I see only good causes to remove Saddam, I cannot see one argument, why not removing this criminal vermin.

This was not the question.

The question was: who is responsible to remove him, who has to do this, how can it be done, what can we do to help to remove him. And these are all questions of public international law, because unfortunately, Saddam was the official leader of a recognized state.

And the next question was: how can it be done, that things in Iraq are getting better and not starting a civil war there.

No, because this is only polemics. The Berlin Wall did not fall because the US supported Saddam, sorry. And, by the way: unfortunately many Europeans supported Saddam, too, to make that clear. This is not only a mistake of the US.

BTW: when I have a look onto how the DDR was and how the BRD was, then I know, why I like the US and don't like the communists at all ;-)

I'm not arguing against Reagan here, as you might detect yourself. And: I don't like the communists at all, BTW.

Yes. A mistake, as it was a big mistake from French and Germans, too. We all have to learn not to support criminals any more.

I'm not calling dumb that the US are reacting onto the attacks. This is their right without any doubt, and I already mentioned, that here in Europe there is much support - not only, but also because of being under attack, too, like in Madrid.

We're talking about the provisions to chose here, not about wether we should do something. Of course, we have to act! The question is: how?

Thank you.

[trying to help the Arabic people to find to freedom and democracy]

Let's support the opposition with education and money. Let's support them with intelligence and public withstanding. Let's support them with sanctions and refusing recognition against dictators. We all did a big mistake to support Saddam and never support opposition. We all did a big mistake by never trying to support the opposition.

Really, I cannot see how to help here. This is a very difficult question. What we could do is to exert pressure against the people who support him. I'm not having a solution for this problem, and I'm very worried about that.

I hope, Kim will run out of money at last.

Almedijani is dreadful. But you cannot compare the Mullahs to Saddam. The Mullahs have power, because we did fail in supporting the democratic forces in Iran against the Shah. We supported the Shah, and that was a terrible mistake of us. The Shah just was a monarch, a dictator. The Mullahs have power because of a revolution of the people of Iran.

Of course, I don't like the Mullahs at all. But I cannot ignore these facts, and you should not, too.

And we are doing the same mistake again in Saudi Arabia. Please have a look onto _this_ regime, please, which is called "friends of the US".

You're right, this is no easy game to play. But Iraq was not like Northern Korea is. Iraq is not homogenous at all. There are many different groups who don't like each other. And Saddam is not Kim.

Northern Korea reminds me to Oceania of "1984" of George Orwell. This is a real big problem.

Yes.

This is just wrong. And it's just not fair from you to allege this about everybody who thinks, that the provisions taken in Iraq are terribly wrong.

You better should have a look onto the results and think about the possiblity, that I'm completely right here.

The opposite is true.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

Stop following the media hype and talk with people on the ground and contract people working to rebuild Iraq - you won't hear anything from them like you do in the media. The media reports what they want for Political reasons, they don't report news any more.

Take the time to talk with a returning contractor or military member, see what they have to say about Iraq and what is happening - better to get it from the real people doing the real work, than a media outlet that has a false agenda.

Reply to
Leythos

Delinquency? LOL! Come on, Volker, even in German, delinquency and terrorism cannot be synonymous:). A delinquency is typically a misdemeanor offense :). You're funny!

If you'd like to suggest another noun, like organized sociopathy, I might agree.

Reply to
optikl

Sorry. It seems that my English is not very good. What I mean is the noun of being criminal. Can you help, please?

OK, if this is correct, so. I mean the German "organisierte Kriminalität".

Sorry for my bad English and the inconvenience this may cause. I'm using

formatting link
to hide, and I found this here:

formatting link
What I wanted to say: you can compare them to the Mafia and they way they work.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

The FISA act and the creation of "the wall" between the FBI and the CIA was a major factor in not investigating some of the 9-11 terrorists before 9-11. Whether this would have stopped 9-11 is always debatable. If you Google (or altavista) there is quite a bit on info on the subject.

formatting link
is one article that I picked out:
formatting link
nothing which can be implemented without strict

It is unfortuanate that you do not. America, contrary to "popular" belief is really a great place. We welcome foreigners all's we ask is that you follow the rules, answer a few questions.

I am sorry for being so blunt. A few years ago we allowed people in this country freely, they took advantage of that fact and highjacked airplanes and killed Americans. I am sorry that a few bad people ruined it for the good people. Focus your anger on them not us. We need good, smart people like yourself here. That is what had made America great.

It apparently already is, when someone declares war on you and attacks you it is then war......an unfortunate set of circumstances but it is reality.

I see it more as a religious war, a war that goes back thousands of years, a war against unbelievers.....the worst kind of war.

Tactically speaking the management of the war has been exceptional. Remember This is the man that lead the military in a campaign that took Iraq with very little loss of life on both sides. A very successful milary campaign that will be studied by the war colleges for years to come. His responsibility is to make sure that our soldiers responsible for atrocities are punished as he has. If he were to not take action against these soldiers thaen I would be in complete agreement with you.

It is an issue of direct responsibility, just as a CEO of a company does not know everything that goes on in his company.

I have never seen police department that can always be there before the crime, if that were the case there would be no murders or crime.

Reply to
Cliff

My German is almost non-existent, but the above phrase looks like it would translate to the English phrase, "Organized Crime".

I think the lines of definition between criminal -> terrorist -> soldier aren't so clear.

Organized crime (mafia, drug cartels) are motivated by money, whereas terrorists are motivated by politics, but they are both organized in similar ways.

Is an insurgent a terrorist or a soldier? Or is it another category entirely? Our government has gotten very liberal lately with the "terrorist" label. For instance, I disagree that the captured Afghani Taliban that we are holding in Guantanamo are terrorists because they didn't happen to be wearing a uniform when they were caught. The Taliban

*was* the government of Afghanistan when we went to war there, whether we officially recognized them or not. Just because they couldn't afford uniforms or chose not to wear them does not make them any less soldiers. If we send special forces (Army Rangers, Navy Seals, etc.) into an area incognito, does that make them terrorists rather than soldiers? Is a CIA operative a terrorist?

Words matter and labels make a difference. Conservatives in our country have taken to calling the people that strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up in train stations "homicide bombers". The term used to be "suicide bomber", and it was a very useful way to describe these crazy people. It told you something about their motivations and methods. A homicide bomber could just as easily refer to someone that plants a bomb in a suitcase and walks away. It reminds me of the difference between a chicken and a pig. A chicken is involved in your breakfast, but the pig is *committed*. What I find really funny is the way they make up new terms like that for obviously political purposes while ranting against the political correctness of the left.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

You probably mean "organized crime". And your English isn't bad.

No, I'd totally disagree. The Mafia doesn't take promote suicide missions, nor are their targets often totally random, in order to make some kind of religious statement. There is nothing at all political, nothing, in what Al Quaeda and its variants espouse. Theirs are solely cultural and religious motivations. They try hard to disguise them as political, but I'm 100% unconvinced. Politics is about power. Their world vision is about Islam.

Terrorism is serious business and doesn't compare well to any other kind of criminal or sociopathic behavior.

Reply to
optikl

Police work by its nature is reactive, not proactive. That's why I take responsibility for my own personal security, along with my friend Mr. Glock.

Reply to
optikl

And we're way out-numbered.

We have the Generals to thank for that. And quite a few retired Generals with decades of experience are calling for his resignation.

Remember

We beat a decimated and demoralized Iraqi army in a straight-ahead shooting war. Big surprise. It would have been incredibly embarrassing had we not done so.

The planning for the occupation is what was very poor. The neo-cons have some real blind-spots caused by their almost religious sense of self-righteousness. The plain fact is that we never had enough boots on the ground to defend the country from itself once we toppled the regime. The result is that three years later the state of the infrastructure is still atrocious. Things like electricity, water, and sewage. The good old boy contractors are spending twice as much as they planned to accomplish half of what they promised and the main reason is that they are spending up to 60% of their money on security.

We were told that the war would largely pay for itself by confiscating some oil revenues. But we can't keep the pipes online because the insurgents (terrorists, whatever) keep blowing them up.

Face it. The war in Iraq is a friggin' mess thanks to Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo-con crew.

I find it interesting that not one single officer has yet to be punished. It's all low-level grunts. Shit rolls downhill apparently.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

Don't see it. Explain the politics behind Islamic terrorism. I'd be interested in learning something. Seriously.

Sure, if they fit the definition. IMO, the modus operandi should define that. You need to look at who is doing what.

Reply to
optikl

Sorry for the souirce, I was just pointing out that there are murders in Germany and that the police came after the fact not before.

Same as above.

No definately not true. Look at the last LA riots where the police abandoned large areas on LA and left the citizens to defend for themselves. Look at the recent Katrina disaster. Police can never always be there, it is a misnomer that they can protect you. I believe in protecting yourself first, that you are responsible for that basic level of protection that the police cannot give you.

Unfortuantely we have an organization that is supposed to take care of there issues, it is the UN. The problem is the UN is so uneffective it cannot even enforce it's own declarations. I guess when you have a war to remove someone from a country, ( Saddam and Kuwait) and the country that invaded was removed and at the time of removal promised to disarm and disclose and they refuse and then you have a world organization that allows this to continue without taking any meaningful actions except to starve the Iraqi people while the leaders are still getting rich.....welll that is why you have to take actions into your own hands. Just the fact that Saddam did not comply with his agreement to disarm and disclose is enough to remove him from power. This could have been done after GW1 but by negotiated agreeement with Saddam this was not done, Saddam refused to follow the conditions of the cessation of hostilities. It was his choice.

That is one of the resons that Rumsfeld supported Saddam, after Iran was taken over by the religious mullahs we had lost all of our listening stations that we used to spy on the soviet union many of there were relocati\\ed to Iraq and Turkey. We also were at odds with Iran, Saddams enemy. Without the constant pressure of us against the USSR glasnost would have never happened.

Unfortunately it boils down to a couple of words....oil.....money. Whether you are French, German, Russian or American you always look after the interests of your country and their assets. Total elf fina was in Saddams back pocket, that is why we did not have the French support. Russia at the time had pending contract to develop oil fields in the north. All of these contract were pending on the removal of sanctions from Iraq and that is why the sanctions were fought against so hard and why Saddam never really took the issue of compling with the UN resolutions after the first gulf war.

What is the DDR and BRD? Intelligence agencies? Sorry for appearing so stupid......

Now there is a plan! Unfortunately those little things like oil and money always get into the way!

I sure as heck wish I knew that answer. I think a lot of people are asking that question.

You know we tried that with Saddam for some 13+ years to no effect. There is always someone in the world that will take advantage of the sanctions and try to get the upper hand. The French and Russians had pending oil contracts with Saddam that undemined the sanctions, the oil for food program only enriched Saddam. How can sanctions work under those circumstances?

Me too.

Yes maybe he will......unfortunately thousands of his citzens may die of starvation in the process. Talk about sad.....Koreans are very hard working people, they do not deserve this.

The Saudis are only friends of our money and our "protection". They are making minor concessions but they are still the worst of the worst......the way they treat their people, their religious extremeism, human right are mere minor inconveniences to them. They may be friends of the US but not me.....

Agreed.

A real big problem...

It is one thing to disagree it is another to allow things to happen. When the world cannot stand with one voice on an issue like Iraq how do you expect the world to come together over issues like Iran or N. Korea? There is nothing wrong with dissent but when that dissent turns to obstruction...

You seem like a pretty smart fellow and I certainly am not disagreeing with you here but the evidence sure speaks for itself. The world does not speak with one voice it speaks with multiple interests, money comes before what is right......the root of much evil......money.

Reply to
Cliff

A great source:

formatting link
Dirty boots do the talking....one of the great journalists of our times.

Reply to
Cliff

Enforcing a strict religion is the politics behind. And, as everytime, this is only a pretense to gain power.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

Rod, some folks think it's very unpatriotic to criticize a life long administrative bureaucrat. I mean, he was picked by the President!

While Rumsfeld was a distinguished Navy pilot and flight instructor, he never personally saw the kind of action a pilot sees in war time and he is not a trained military strategist or tactician, from what I see in his biography.

Leading a pharmaceutical company, even a highly successful one like G.D. Searle, hardly compares with leading a nation committed to war.

It's quite telling that six generals have called for his resignation. This is a group that values loyalty and camaraderie probably as much, or more, that any group of individuals you can imagine.

Rummy tried to do Iraq on the cheap, against the advice of his generals, who were far too loyal to fight him on it. Now, I can only picture the famed comedian, Oliver Hardy, saying to his dopey, inept side-kick Stan Laurel, "this is another fine mess you got us into, Stanley".

It's unfortunate that the best and the brightest rarely gravitate toward public service any more. Those that can, do. Those that can't go to Washington.

Reply to
optikl

Separating Religion and Politics into separate realms is a relatively recent idea. It's an idea that hasn't really taken hold in the Islamic world and, in fact, Islamic fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden consider the idea of democratic self-government to be a heresy against Allah.

The ultimate goal of the Islamists is a world-encompassing Caliphate, a religious State. They've been pursuing that goal for over a thousand years.

You need to look at three things: What you're doing, Why you're doing it, and How you're doing it.

The What is violence, with no clear distinction between military and non-military targets. The Why is an ideological motivation (political or religious) with the primary goal being de-stabilization. The How is asymmetrical, guerrilla, tactics.

While terrorists may be sponsored by a State, they are not acting in an official capacity as agents of a State.

So I object to the characterization of captured Taliban from Afghanistan as terrorists because:

They were attacking the military targets of an invading force. They were motivated to protecting their homeland. They were using primarily conventional weapons of war (guns and bombs). The Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan when we invaded, so armed members of the Taliban, whether they wore any kind of uniform or not, were by practical definition, soldiers.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the captured Taliban are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. The world knows this, and the Bush administration is acting in contravention to ratified Treaty obligations by ignoring these facts and inventing terms to avoid calling them POWs.

The Bush administration seems to want it both ways. The War on Terror is a war in the conventional sense when it suits them politically, and when it's not convenient, it's something else.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

Agreed

Yes, 6 out of some 6000. The old guard, the cold warriors. They never liked Rumsfeld to begin with.

an that lead the military in a campaign that took Iraq with

It could have been a lot worse. The predictions before the war were overstated but the facts remain we did an exceptional job. Never in history has a country of that size and population been taken with that low levels of losses. Strategically it was brilliant, like I said it will be studied in the war colleges for years to come. We could have used traditional methods,

500,000 soldiers, bombarding the country and it's infrastructure for months before putting massive amounts of troops on the ground. We could have wiped Iraq off of the map if we wanted to but we would have killed many more civilians and the infrastructure would have taken many more years to replace and repair. And the funny thing is that I do not think it would stop people like yourself from carping about the way it is going, in fact it would probably just give you more to complain about.

g for the occupation is what was very poor. The neo-cons have

Yeah, too bad we can't read the future, then we wouldn't have people like you with 20-20 hindsite picking apart mistakes that would have been hard to avoid anyway.

Sounds to me you are reading way too many press reports generated by those reporters glued to the green zone. Comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan after the second world war shows the reality of retructuring a country after war.

iers responsible for

Do you have evidence that they were complicit in torture? Or is this just another reason you are using to beat up on someone who has done a good job that you just don't agree with?

Reply to
Cliff

Yeah... like osama bin laden was protecting his homeland Saudi Arabia. Like the Chechens or the Pakistanis too I assume...

Just like all good terrorists do. Maybe there would not have been an issue if the planes they flew into the WTC were made of paper.

By practical definition they are illegal combatants. That is if you believe following laws.

Your conclusions are ludicrous and have no legal basis whatsoever. Possibly a case of wishful thinking on your part because you do not agree and you wish to condemm those who you do not agree with.

Bush did not invent the term illegal combatants, or create the definition of illegal combatants. The term arises from the Geneva conventions....Bush was not even born when the term and the definition were introduced.

It seems to me that you are the one that wants it both ways, inventing ludicrous meanings to existing laws, accusing someone of inventing things that were in existence the day they were born. Grasping at straws to bash those that you do not agree with.

So you say. Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions........

Reply to
Cliff

Cliff wrote: Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions........

Guess? No guessing about it.

Reply to
optikl

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.