United States Attacked - Let's All Do Our Part

You write that since your original post, France, Germany, and Italy have all done a 180 degree about-face and come out in 100% support of the United States in the war on terrorism.

Italy has NOT done a 180 degree about-face.
Once again your assertion is FALSE.
Stop your unfounded diatribe.
I hope that there is the truth among the values you're ready to fight for.

Ulrich

 

Some good news:

Video Relief is an effort to help all victims, families, friends, coworkers and relief agencies affected by the tragic event of September 11. This program is made available by a consortium of companies in the videoconferencing industry: Polycom, PictureTel and a network of both companies' channel partners around the world.
See http://distancelearn.about.com/library/weekly/aa091801a.htm for more.

HorizonLive is also offering free access to
its products and services to their neighbors in New York and to anyone else affected or displaced by this tragedy. Some have taken advantage of HorizonLive's virtual office products to set up open communication lines between employees, clients, and families, while others have created one-time
information events that reach hundreds of users in one session. See http://www.horizonlive.com/hltour.html for more info about HorizonLive.

I'm encouraged to see these companies helping people communicate. Right now we are all rubbed raw and there will be no shortage of misunderstandings. The more that we can talk to one another, the better.



------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com

 

You believe that the majority of NATO members are not supporters of US anti-terrorist policy.You are probably right.
The French President,Jacques Chirac,is a supporter but his Prime Minister,Lionel Jospin,is not fully in line with him.Chirac is conservative but France is governed by the left wing.

Despite this immense tragedy and despite deep solidarity countries,even NATO members,have the right to consider that the US anti-terrorist policy is not inevitably the best way to solve the issue of terrorism.

I hope that the terrorists and their supporters will be strictly punished.But the culprits,only the culprits.And that's the problem.

Take care too,Karlos.

Ulrich

 

Hello, Ulrich!

In name of fairness, I have to agree with Ulrich. He is right. The tone of the mentioned countries has changed, but that doesn't mean that the change has been turned to a diametral opposite of what it was before.

Cordially yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

No. The people and society of Afghanistan must be subject to attack if we determine that the Taliban have supported this--or any other--terrorism. It is their government, just as we are responsible for ours. I don't advocate the targets of hors de combat, but this must be a strike against the country in a war-like fashion, not the conduct of a law enforcement action.

There will be no way we can suppress terrorism if we do not make it intolerable for governments to sponsor it. Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and others have used terrorism as a matter of conducting foreign policy. To stop it, you have to make it painful for the rulers of these countries, to the polnt where whatever gains they see in conducting terrorism are far outweighed by the destruction they bring onto themselves and their peoples, coupled with the pressure from their peoples to not be ruled in that way.

"A people get the government they deserve." Attributed to Thomas Jefferson, H.L. Mencken, and Alan Keyes. My money's on Big Jeff.

Rich Douglas

 

Hello again, Ulrich!

ab

Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

If what you're saying is true (Italy has not done an about-face), that means that they will not honor their NATO commitment, as that was their original position. We all now know that is not true.

Why did France, Germany, and Italy suddenly heel the wheel 180 degrees? I don't know, but I suspect these countries assumed that they could dictate to the White House what they were going to do, without any consequences. Under the Clinton administration, they could and did get away with that, with no problem at all.

I would wager that these countries were quite shocked to realize that if they chose to follow that same path now, all support from the US, whether it be foreign welfare...err...foreign aid, or military forces, would be withdrawn in a heartbeat. That's a hell of a wake-up call.

I once again say that any country that does not stand with us now, we should *never* stand with them again.

Bruce

 

My goodness.What are you doing Bruce? And above all why?
You're telling untruths.
Shortly after these barbaric and incomprehensible attacks the Italian government decided that Italy will honor their NATO commitment.That is the original position of Berlusconi's government.And this position has not changed ever since.

Read above.

An outstanding analysis.

Ulrich

PS Fanaticism ist a contagious disease.

 

We should also resolve to always stand by those who support us now. I have always had a profound respect and admiration for the people of the United Kingdom. Those feelings have multiplied exponentially since 9/11/01.

Mark

 

Dualism,manicheism.
President Bush spoke of right and wrong.
Will it be easy to recognize the enemies?
Are things simple?

Saudi Arabia promised partial assistance to the USA but it is also a country that finances Islamic fundamentalists in the world.
Pakistan decided to collaborate with the USA but it is also a country that has promoted,it's an euphemism,terrorism.
UK is a haven for the fanatics and extradition seems not to be an English word.The deal with the Islamic fundamentalists,no violence in the UK,a policy shared by Germany.
The USA are partially responsible for the seizure of power of the Talebans.
E c'e l'Italia,l'Italia con Bertinotti che non vuole,con D'Alema che vuole ma non vuole,con il Biancofiore che non sa se vuole o non vuole,con Bossi che vuole ma non vuole o forse si,chi lo sa,con...

Bruce,try to remember that you're not sadder than me.
You're maybe right.After this crime against humanity things must be simple,but the potential consequences of this long operation frighten me.

Ulrich

PS

Un sondage COMPAS effectué pour le National Post:

Israeliens et Americains sont les partisans les plus fermes d'une attaque militaire contre le pays ou se trouvent les responsables des attentats indique un sondage realise dans huit pays du 14 au 17 septembre. 77% des Israeliens interroges et 54% des Americains prefereraient voir les Etats-Unis «attaquer militairement le ou les pays où sont bases les terroristes» plutot que chercher a obtenir leur extradition afin de les juger. En revanche, 86% d'Espagnols, 77% d'Allemands, 75% de Britanniques, 71% d'Italiens, 69% de Pakistanais et 67% de Français preferent privilegier la recherche de l'extradition des responsables de ces attentats ayant fait plus de 5 800 morts ou disparus.

Favour military attack
77% Isrealians 54% Americans

Favour extradition
86% Spaniards 77 % Germans 75% the English 71% Italians 67% the French

 

I couldn't agree more. The sights and sounds of the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, where the new guard force entered to "Stars & Stripes Forever", and then played the "Star Spangled Banner" were incredible. I'm not often moved to tears, but I was very choked-up watching that. How ironic that the first enemy of the United States would become our best friend.

Bruce

 

Dear Mark,

Greetings!

I read somewhere (and probably Ulrich can confirm this) that the greatest support among people favoring military action (not among governments) within any country in Europe comes from Spain. Spain has suffered a long tradition of terrorism, so that is why Spanish can easily identify with the US cause.

Best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

I never said that I was. I was merely pointing out the fact that some of our NATO "allies" initially refused to commit military forces to the coming war against terrorism. That's it. I don't blame you for taking offense for me pointing out a failure of your government, I would be equally embarrassed if the United States failed to step up when an ally was attacked. But, I think we have a proven track record in that department.

However, I'm pleased to see that the initial refusals have given way to total cooperation in some countries, that's why I issued a retraction rather than an apology.

The jury is still out on a lot of NATO countries, but I say again that any of them who refuse to assist us now should be expelled from NATO, and if they're not, the US should withdraw immediately and spend our millions of dollars in dues on our own defense, or those who are our true friends.

Bruce

 

Hey, there!

I certainly agree with Ulrich here. The UK didn't want to extradite Gen. Augusto Pinochet to Spain in spite of the fact the Gen. Pinochet was most certainly guilty of his charges. As we know, a so called "sickness" came into his rescue, but I have my serious doubts. The only humanitarian element in favor of Gen. Pinochet was his advanced age, but apparently this was not enough to avoid his extradition, so his "sickness" appeared at the right time.

Sincerely yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye, who supports the UK decision "if and only if" Gen. Pinochet had a real sickness.
[email protected]

 

Appropiate sentence should read:

"in spite of the fact that..."

K.A."C".L.

 

Hello, readers!

It is interesting to note that Bruce only mentions NATO, but he does not mention the Rio Treaty of the Organization of American States (OAS). Some relevant paragraphs read:

"ARTICLE 3

1. The High Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack by any State against an American State shall be considered as an attack against all the American States and, consequently, each one of the said Contracting Parties undertakes to assist in meeting the attack in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.


2. On the request of the State or States directly attacked and until the decision of the Organ of Consultation of the Inter-American System, each one of the Contracting Parties may determine the immediate measures which it may individually take in fulfillment of the obligation contained in the preceding paragraph and in accordance with the principle of continental solidarity. The Organ of Consultation shall meet without delay for the purpose of examining those measures and agreeing upon the measures of a collective character that should be taken.

3. The provisions of this Article shall be applied in case of any armed attack which takes place within the region described in Article 4 or within the territory of an American State. When the attack takes place outside of the said areas, the provisions of Article 6 shall be applied.

4. Measures of self-defense provided for under this Article may be taken until the Security Council of the United Nations has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

While, of course, the help of Europe, Canada, and other members of NATO are of vital importance to the US cause, the help of our southern neighbors (and Canada as a OAS member) shouldn't be underestimated. After all, the first president (or head of state) in the world that denounced the WTC attacks was President Vicente Fox of Mexico.

Most cordially,


Karlos Alberto "Mr. Caballero" Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Please read "as an OAS member".

K.A."C".L.

 

I'm sorry Karlos,I wasn't able to find the poll of the National Post in English.

The countries that were polled(14-17.09.01) are France,Germany,Israel,Italy,Pakistan,Spain,the UK and the USA

77% of Israelians and 54% of Americans prefer a military action to the conduct of a "law enforcement action".

86% of Spaniards,77% of Germans,75% of the Bittisch,71% of Italians,69% of Pakistanians and 76% of the French prefer a "law enforcement action" to a military action.

According to this poll fewer than 15% of the Spaniards and fewer than 25% of the Brittish favour a military action.

Best regards

Ulrich

 

France 67%
Not 76%

Sorry