dhess

It was also revealed that a large amount of money, ine excess of $70,000 was spent in buying C4 from the Indonesian military. If they can buy C4 they can probably just as easily obtain shoulder launched surface to air missiles and start blowing up jet liners.

If this report is true that is very scary.

C4 as most of you will know is a far more advanced explosive compared to the low tech ammonium nitrate fuel oil bombs used by most terrorists.

Its substantially more powerful and gives terrorists the means to develop more compact and portable bombs.

Furthermore ANFO bombs need a strong shock wave to detonate i.e. another explosive, meaning that a small amount C4 can be used to build detonators for a large number of less sophisticated but equally dangerous ammonium nitrate based bombs.

AusS2000

Couple of points:

1) The aid was one part of a military mission. It was performed by military personnel.

2) To suggest that the sole intent of a military action is to 'kill' is incorrect. The intention of a military action is to over power an opposing force through destruction or confiscation of resources. The bomb that was dropped on that wedding was probably intended to disable a missile site or power station. These are much more scarce and hence valuable resources in Suddam Hussein's mind than people and most of us are aware of that.

AusS2000

I'm not claiming any victory. In fact on the relevancy of the comparison I admit defeat. Not because I don't feel that there is any merit, but because if the audience it was intended for don't feel it has any, then it has no purpose.

According to you 'all' the US participants already have.

MyBad

Gentlemen,

Both of your points are well made. They are points that are also debated in the US and every civilized nation. Unfortunately there is no clear winner.

I subscribe to the belief that words have never brought about peace. Peace has always been the result of conflict or the threat of conflict. Without a strong military a nation is at risk of losing it's ability to even negotiate. Weak nations ally themselves with others who share their concerns. Its all about a nation's ability to leverage. With enough leverage war is avoided.

There is no peace between Israel and Palestinians because there can be no clear victor. I'm afraid the war against terror will also have no clear victor.

smccurry

[QUOTE]Originally posted by suit36
[B]

A major international incident unreported in the US!

smccurry

Bingo!
It's only natural for a country to act in it's own interests. Why else would it commit resources and risk political fallout? (Unless, of course, it is for political gain.)
For the most part, it is very obvious what the interests are, but sometimes the ulterior motives are unclear. I'm still not sure what the U.S. had to gain by aiding the Somalians. Whatever it was, it musn't have had too much impact on us, or we wouldn't have turned and tucked tale as soon as one operation went bad...

naishou

It's a problem isn't it? It's always been a part of conflict as far as I know and at least these days there is some semblance of an effort to avoid it, unlike carpet bombing in WWII and Vietnam. I think the point I'm trying to make and the thought that the analogy is supposed to provoke is that conflict is always bad. Killing people and blowing things up is always bad. No matter how we try to legitimise it as state sanctioned it's still fundamentally the same act. To a hypothetical peaceful alien civilisation our concept of war would seem very strange indeed. We totally suspend our usual rules and morals! What would normally be abhorent to us is somehow acceptable because the state declared war, or because some of the participants are wearing uniforms labelling them as fair game? Bizarre! To me any act that is intended to or is likely to kill, maim or destroy is to be avoided at all costs, and when we do have no alternative we should be mindful of just how horrendous what we are doing really is, and have appropriate levels of regret and remorse for the victims. I think calling civilian casualties "collateral damage" is offensive to all human beings.

So am I suggesting we disarm? You bet! Unfortunately we'll need all our potentially threatening neighbours to do the same but lets not rule out such a noble goal. If it doesn't happen sooner or later the world is pretty much doomed in my view. To me fighting each other is unbelieveably childish. I can't help thinking if the world was run by women there wouldn't be half as much violence on all scales (there's a can of worms I've opened). Why on Earth can't people focus on cooperating and helping each other rather than putting each other down? Reminds me of a comment on Communism I once heard, author forgotten. It was simply "Right concept, wrong species". I think it says it all.

wdavis

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernie
[B]It's clear most of our US visitors to this forum have decided I'm a coward.

My original rationale was that if we leave people alone, they generally don't come and blow things up in my yard.

If leaving people alone and not trying to enforce our will on them makes one a coward, so be it. I thought that was what democracy was built on. I must be wrong.

naishou

Tonight I watched an Islamic extremist interviewed on television. He said that if Islam is attacked it will fight back. He didn't say it will go out and actively find non-believers to kill for no reason and indeed I've never heard any Muslim say such a thing. I would like to see a Muslim distort the bible in a similar way to what you have just done. Out of context quotes from scripture can say whatever you damn well want. Just what constitutes an "attack on Islam" is something we might all dispute with him though

dhess

I kind of agree and disagree with that statement.

There can easily be a clear victor in a war between Israel and the Palestinians. After all Israel is a nuclear power. The question is at what cost. The costs politically and in human life are usually too high.