Hello Dreadsox ,
#1:
off course you can't compare Terror attacks like the 9/11 one with a war and i didn't want to compare that.
I was just looking for a example and i needed a attack versus the US. Since US wars have allways bin in foreign countries, (except civil war) it was the only thing that came to my mind.
Again: Terrorists are no Soldiers and a attack of terrorists is no war.
#2:
i thought they'd throw it for civilians or so called "collateral damage". If they do it for foreign soldiers i'm really surprised. Maybe sting2 can tell us why? I allways thought it was part of the job of the military to either kill or imprison their oponents?
#3:
you're right, i'd be glad for that information too and run into the next bunker.
Sounds to me like "old fashioned wars" like the "Red Baron" in Worldwar I - attacking with style.
STING2:
>"Bush-logic would be also fine for a strike against the US.
>Thank god we only have one US and one G.W.B on this
>planet"
let's quote the most important parts of:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,671522,00.html
again:
a)
"the FBI has broadened its definition of WMDs to say that "though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical or biological agents, [they] may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.""
b)
"Take the American "Daisy Cutter" bomb, which causes an explosion almost as impressive as that of a nuclear weapon. Television pictures of the US bombardment of Afghanistan last November showed a huge, red mushroom cloud with flames reaching 300 metres into the air - that was a Daisy Cutter doing its stuff near Kabul. It uses explosives similar to those in the bomb detonated in Oklahoma City, but is six times more powerful. Its blast flattens everything within 600 metres, which would seem very much like "mass destruction" in the middle of a city."
a+b the FBI would call "Daisy Cutters" WMDs
and:
"New York Times ran an editorial headlined "America as Nuclear Rogue" following a Pentagon planning paper that proposed pre-emptive US nuclear strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers. If any other country did that, it said, "Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state"."
So just imagine there would be 2 G.W.B. in the world, both with the same sense for "we are good - let's bomb the evil ones"
i'm pretty sure G.W.B 2 would easily find the right words for America2 to justify a war with America1
And when i read today that some of the things Blair presented as justification why a war is neccessary was several years old and outdated i had to think imaginge this second G.W.B. would try to link the Bush family to the bin laden family and the support of Saddam - he could quote a lot.
nothing more, nothing less.
I never wanted to say that America or Bush are evil. I love the States, i was verry impressed by many things they did in history. Just the way they talk on TV makes me think "i'm glad there's only one G.W.B in this world" because i'm affraid they wouldn't like each other.
>Again the United States is not in violation of 17 United
>Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The
>United Nations has not launched illegal unprovoked
>invasions and attacks against four different countries in the
>past 20 years. The United States is not in violation of a
>ceacefire resolution.
To make it short:
we tried this several times, we can quote paragraphs of laws and resolutions bud sadly - here's noone to decide who of us is right. Legal or illegal ? I guess we'd need a judge for international laws now ;-)
So i we still want the same thing, liberty and freedom for the people. I'm sure your prefered solution (war) will make the situation worse and you think the same about my solution.
Klaus