Close USA borders to Arab world?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barrk
In regards to abdul's post: You say that the US Military should keep out but then blame the US for the problems in Kashmir and Columbia not being solved......do you think we should help or not?....you can't tell us not to and then blame us because we aren't. :confused:

---

Yes, US should help solve the problems of Columbia and Kashmir but then there will be a chance of American civlians being targeted in response to that "US help". For Kashmir, I blamed US because of only one-sides help. If US tries to get rid of militants, it won't solve the problem so US should only somehow politically make BOTH sides take steps to solve the problem. For Columbia, I don't know US should help or not but the thing is that those rebels will get after any US civlians. So if US helps Columbia then there will always be a chance of American cvilians being attacked so if US wants to prevent its citizens then I think it should try not to harm those rebels. But if you think those rebels are bad people and US should get rid of them in order to create peace wold-wide, then US should go ahead and bomb the hell out of them. Basically, if you help against them, they'll come after you. If you don't, they'll keep away.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by snakeeyes1000
a few points I would like to make:

1.Simonm, you are obviously jealous of the United States.
2.I am not an American. They are the most powerful nation on Earth, I have been there, and I give them due respect. No country is perfect.
3.If every muslim caught in the United States was executed, are you telling me that terrorism in the United States would be a problem?
4.The United States' military record isn't spotless. England's is much worse, and Russia's is much better. India and the middle-east is a joke among most of my defense department co-workers.
5.The United states really represents a unique form of government. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I give them credit.

---

Yes he probably is saying that if every muslim was caught in the Us there would still be terrorrism. Theres a lot of terrorrists who are american citizens u know?

NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barrk
NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.

---

Was it a response to my post?:confused:

:(

:(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerials
Theres a lot of terrorrists who are american citizens u know?

---

NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.




No, sorry abdul...next time I'll add the quotes!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barrk
NO, I didn't. Could you please send me a list of names and addresses.




No, sorry abdul...next time I'll add the quotes!

---

No problem:)

u can visit some of them in jail

rjlohan...

Quote:

---

... what happens to people like that guy who had 'bombs' in his shoes on that aeroplane - he was as non-arab as they come.

---

Uhhh... hate to burst your bubble dude, but this isn't exactly as "non-arab as they come".

http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2002/07/10.jpg

I might say that he is AS arab as they come.

This on the other hand is pretty non-arab looking:

http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2002/07/11.jpg

:)

MasterBlaster,

Don't confuse firepower with military greatness - can you spell "Vietnam"? Military greatness is generally based on strong military leadership, with tact and diplomacy playing a major part. Napoleon was a great military leader and tactician. GW is more of a brute.

Since the end of World War II, the US' military endevours haven't exactly all been raging successes.... Korea and Vietnam already mentioned, don't forget the fact that while Iraq was beaten, it wasn;t actually beaten. From a strategy point of view, the Bay of Pigs was a fiasco, Granada, well, it's hardly a big country... Somalia wasn't exactly a success either.

The US may have the might, but it doesn't necessarily have the leadership to use it correctly.

That said, it IS in a position (although I'm not sure if the US put itself there or whether it sort of got the crown by default) of power - while the rest of the world reduces defence spending, the US ramps it up. It still spends more per capita than anybody else - if you weren't the most powerful by now, there would be something wrong.

- gaffa

barrk,

not wnating to get too invloved in this particular sub thread, but off the top of my head, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczinsky (sp?) - the Unabomber - spring to mind.

They are two that have actually perpetrated terrorist attacks on US soil in recent times.

- gaffa

:(

:(

Aren't the guys who flew the planes dead?

Touche

- gaffa

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster


Weren't those guys executed?

---

I remember Timothy McVeigh was excuted a few months ago. Not sure about the other guy.

I will try and remain near the topic, although some ppl here make that very hard.

Disclaimer: None of this is meant as a personal attack on anyone, and not meant to incite a flame war. Flames are meant for the VN boards and less civilized places :) (ok now someone will prove me wrong for sure) Afterall, i might need some code snipets from some of you some day. :)

A "mind your own business" policy is impossible, name one country who has pulled it off succesfully! I think the US tried when it attempted to stay out of WWII. It's the whole catch 22 of freedom of choice. Deciding not to make a choice is still choosing, so might as well make a choice and live with it. We live on the same planet here, there is NO possible way you can sit in your own contry mind your own business and think it doesn't effect others in other countries. It is impossible to think that if you don't interfere with someone else that they won't know you are there. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. so might as well be damned for having the balls to stand up for your morals.

Terrorists missed big time when they think that by bombing a building or making americans feel threatened will get them what they want. As someones said "I will never understand americans" Your right we are a unique type. The harder you push an american, or the more you tell them they can't do something, the more they fight back or try to do it. If you want the US out of a country or to not send aid someplace, don't bomb a building, that just brings more attention your way. American's rely way too much IMHO on second hand information (TV, News, National Geographic ETC..) Get that information to the ppl and believe me ppl can preasure congress to do what they want. Look at somalia. A few pictures of starving children in that country and end result US troops 19 dead and thousands of somalies. Before sep 11th my sister was the kindest IMHO person i knew. She was all for money toward education, aid for those in need, she believed the US should look inward more and less toward other countries. After sep 11th her comments where near the opposite, she believed in nuking afghanistan just to make a point no matter how many civilians lost their lives (I hope she isn't the majority), she believed in doubling our efforts in foriegn countries etc..

I won't go into what i think US actions should be since well I elected someone to make that decision, but truthfully that's another thread.

Americans know the price of freedom, we haven't had to pay that price in a long time till sep 11th rolled around. The price of freedom isn't something you pay once, its an ongoing debt, and if tomorrow someone said more lives where recquired to ensure the freedom of my fellow americans or a stranger in another land, i would cut in line.

Someone said "If you want to feel safe from terrorism move to small cities or towns" well it may not be public knowledge and i won't claim to have any prior briefings to such but: If this would be the presumed mentality of the ppl, and your goal as a terrorist would be to make said ppl feel unsafe and strike fear into them, where would you hit? Not to mention which would be easier to hit? But as i stated before, they don't understand us. Afterall america is small town USA momma's apple pie etc.

As for our military: We are by no means the best trained, the strongest, or the most numerous in the world. There is always someone out there bigger and badder than you. However the resourcefulness and the pure determination of a volunteer (of which our military is derived) will shock you to the core, this has been evident to me on many occasions. The modo in many of our support companies is "We have done so much for so long with so little, pretty soon we will be qualified to do everything with nothing"

All in all there is NO end all be all policy, No cookie cutter or absolute way to handle foreign affairs, afterall if there where everyone would abide by them. Leadership rolls are the hardest positions to be in, if you don't believe me try sometime.

PS: Mentioned above "You aren't doing anyone a favor by letting them in your country" Go to a natruralization ceremony not for just in the US but in ANY country and ask those swearing in that same question. If they thought the same thing then they wouldn't be there, don't go making that assumption for them, that's borderline slavery. A friend of mine in the military is a citizen from a central american country, his family is still there and he is serving time in the US military to earn himself and them citizenship, I would go and retrieve my med kit for anyone saying such words to him. Another ex military friend of mine opted to make his home in panama, He is VERY thankful for the freedom the US provided so that he could make that decision and for the panamanian government for allowing immigrants of which he would be considered. It's not that the country is better, etc. its that you have the ability and the choice to determine how you live your life.

Another quirk that bugs me now and then. why is it always "The US did it!" "The US intervened" It's not the US that invaded Iraq, or the US that was solely involved in somalia or 20 other foriegn aid missions the lettering on the sides of those vehicles are UN. Yes i know its a one letter difference, but its still a difference. You can say US all you want, and i will stand proud for what the UN does as its no easy feat to get that many countries working together, but i think many of the other countries might take some offence when you decide to leave them out of their due recognition.

OK gotta stop now, Damn its hard to remain on topic :) and i don't want to start rambling . . . too much.

From a comedian last night, and somewhat pertinent:

"Fundamentalists are the problem. On the one hand, we have fundamentalist Muslims blowing up planes because they think they'll go to heaven, and then we have fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics because they think they'll go to heaven. I say, let's send the fundamentalist Christians to fight the fundamentalist Muslims, and kill two birds with one stone."

:D

snakeeyes1000

Quote:

---

1.Simonm, you are obviously jealous of the United States.

---

OK, and how did you work that one out?

Quote:

---

2.I am not an American. They are the most powerful nation on Earth, I have been there, and I give them due respect. No country is perfect.

---

If there ever was a series of unconnected statements, that's a prime example?

America is the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, I will give them that.

Quote:

---

3.If every muslim caught in the United States was executed, are you telling me that terrorism in the United States would be a problem?

---

If that Happenedd, America would no longer be America. It would be more like China. And it would incite more terrorism than it thwarted.

Quote:

---

4.The United States' military record isn't spotless. England's is much worse, and Russia's is much better. India and the middle-east is a joke among most of my defense department co-workers.

---

Why is England's worse? If you look back over the last century, America has made more blunders than England has, despite being a superpower.

Quote:

---

5.The United states really represents a unique form of government. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I give them credit.

---

I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say that Americ has a greater democracy, or more individual freedom's than anywhere else, you would be wrong. Particularly if they adopted the ehtnic clensing policies that you are advocating above.

I love the way everyone says the US should stay out of other nations affairs, but when we do stay out, everyone bitches that we should be doing something.

Like I said before, no nation is perfect and you can't please everyone.

My bad for not readin the whole thread...i'm on limited time and sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
Our government was willing to incarcerate American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War two, which was outrageous in the absence of any evidence that they were potential spies or saboteurs. If we did that, why not get rid of Arabs who are not citizens?

---

Because there is still no evidence that they're potential spies or saboteurs. 99% of them are just ordinary citizens. If there was some tangible evidence that someone entering the country is dangerous, then sure. But just because they're Arab is nearing the Hitler Ghetto Line.

Another note: Hi everyone. :)

-C

I agree with Guv on this.
I also believe Britain should do the same.

Each country has a right to protect itself, and following the terror attacks I think It would be ignorant not to use whatever means possible that may just stop another attack. Even if the means may seem unfair or unjust. I am not saying that Guv's idea will definatly reduce the risk of another terrorist attack, but at present the statistics are there.

Some things aren't fair, for example, Muslims can move to england and build their mosques, with nothing said. However if I was to move to an islamic country and try to build a christian church....I have a feeling I wouldn't be too successful.

Disclaimer as above :)

Contries are like dogs they ALL running around sniffing the butts of other countries. If one of the dogs growls the other bites.

Honeybee would you mind saying what country you are from? I find it hard to believe that the US and only the US is involved in meddling with your countries affairs. I also find it very hard to believe that your country does not do the same to others. As i stated above I seriously doubt anyone can find a country that doesn't meddle in or affect the affairs of another country. To think that your countries actions and the decisions of any government do not affect the other countries of the world is akin to living in a fantasy, but what a nice one it would be.

Any government that doesn't take actions for its greater good and the good of its population is a government that won't last long. Now whether or not they are the right decisions that is another story. But for a government to sit back and not provide military, economical, aid of any kind to its allies and other countries it supports, when it has the ability to give this aid, is just a government that is waiting to dwindle out of existance. If i see my friend starving, getting beat up, in general need I am going to ask him what if anything he needs. I wasn't raised to turn my head and say "Not my problem, good luck to him" One day I may be in his position and may need his help.

Honeybee I see your point; others may not, but i think you are trying to tac down or say who is right and who is wrong, which side is good and which is bad. This is something that will never happen it all comes down to perspective and majority. There is NO hard line for good and bad, right or wrong if you can find that line then all the world will live in peace and harmony. Instead you have leaders who are recquired to make decisions, they can't sit idly by and just say "Ehhh it'll work out" Whether those decisions are right/wrong good/bad is a matter of personal opinion and if you asked 100 ppl you would probably get 100 different responses on the same subject. I personally don't believe killing 6 thousand civilians is a good way of fighting for whatever cause they had; however, they believed it was.

The US has the same policies and performs the same actions other countries do, we just have some big arse spotlight on us and thousands of critics ready to pick away at every single little word or action anyone from our country says or does. There is one unique feature about americans and the US, we live by freedom and as a result we air our laundry for everyone to see. Other countries, governments may push things under the rug, hide the fact that said leader made a mistake, said the wrong thing or was generally human in nature. We instead show every flaw and every decisions for all to see, it is our belief that the government is there to server the ppl and in that we as ppl need to know every little thing they do. This may not happen all the time, but damned if we don't try.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
Some things aren't fair, for example, Muslims can move to england and build their mosques, with nothing said. However if I was to move to an islamic country and try to build a christian church....I have a feeling I wouldn't be too successful.

---

It probably depends on the country, but it's certainly not universally true. When I lived in Pakistan, I thoroughly enjoyed the Christmas Carol concert that was held in one of the Anglican churches in Islamabad...

Once again, a thread seems to have collapsed into the US-bashing frenzy that pops up quite often on these boards. In this case, though, I think it was invited. Guv's suggestions are obscene, and should be regarded as such by pretty much any thinking individual. Unfortunately, the dissenters were leapt upon by a few brainless rednecks with the "We're all great; you only hate us cuz we're great; we could kick your ass; the rest of the world's full of pussies" bull**** that feeds people's misconceptions of Americans. Frankly, it couldn't avoid going downhill from there. It's a shame, because the rational voices of the American majority got drowned out in the ensuing torrent.

Incidentally, while you're banging on about America's war on terrorism, I should point out that this morning, a man was killed by a bomb planted by the Real IRA at a British Army barracks in Northern Ireland (the home of 152 Ambulance Regiment and 253 Field Ambulance). Who funds the Real IRA? Why, the US, of course.

Quote:

---

Guv's suggestions are obscene, and should be regarded as such by pretty much any thinking individual.

---

Not obscene maybe a little extreme, but no more extreme than laws that say you can be arrested for carrying a bible in some islamic countries (Saudi Arabia for example).

Maybe you are only considering Guv's view extreme/obscene because it is coming from America, a country with relativly benign laws and viewpoints compared with the middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
Who funds the Real IRA? Why, the US, of course.

---

I don't think so. The USA sees the Real Ira as a foreign terrorist group therefore members of the Real IRA are denied visa's and all of the Real Ira's american assets frozen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
Maybe you are only considering Guv's view extreme/obscene because it is coming from America, a country with relativly benign laws and viewpoints compared with the middle east.

---

No; absolutely not - and the suggestion itself is inflammatory. You're implying that we expect higher standards of you simply because you're American, which in turn implies that you believe that we consider you to be better than others. Personally, I consider you to have the same mix of the great, the abysmal, and the ordinary as the rest of us.

Location makes no difference. Racism is offensive no matter where it originates, whether it be towards Muslims, Arabs, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, whites, blacks...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
I don't think so. The USA sees the Real Ira as a foreign terrorist group therefore members of the Real IRA are denied visa's and all of the Real Ira's american assets frozen.

---

Not true, I'm afraid. The Real IRA are still allowed to raise funds in the USA - as evidenced by their appearance on a float owned by one of their fund-raising groups in the New York St Patrick's Day parade this year.

Quote:

---

You're implying that we expect higher standards of you simply because you're American

---

No.
I am implying that you expect the USA to have tamer laws.

As a European, I certainly don't believe that your laws are particularly tame. As a matter of fact, I consider the USA to be draconian in many ways.

After reading this thread I looked up the definition of thw word hypocrite.. my english is somewhat limited and I haven't found a use for it until now. You complain about the US interfering in foreign affairs. You complain because you want their policy changed. Therefore, you want to interfere in their affairs, making you hypocrites.

snakeeyes - who the Hell are you talking to? I certainly don't think America - or any country, for that matter - should get involved in other countries' domestic issues, and I've never said otherwise.

Quote:

---

As a European, I certainly don't believe that your laws are particularly tame. As a matter of fact, I consider the USA to be draconian in many ways.

---

You have incorrectly assumed that I am American - I am British.

Ok maybe tamer wasn't the correct word. I expect you are referring to the death penalty which I also don't support.

What I am trying to say is that the US doesn't have any laws that are unfair to a certain race or religion. Sure, sometimes you may hear news about racial injustice, but that is mostly down to a few individuals in each case not the law system.

I heard yesterday that the US is denying right to trial to two Brits in camp x-ray. What rights do US citizens have over them? None, but they still get a trials.

Also in the news from a few weeks back, 94% of the Arab world and 73% of Brits are against military action against Iraq by the US.

And another few: the US pours over £9bn into Israel each year, compared with the £105m that Palestine gets from the United Nations.

Closing US borders to the Arab world would almost certainly not cause a world war, since most of that population aren't interested in what happens to the US, just that they get left alone by it.

To put it quite frankly, the Bush administration is doing a pretty bollocks job of keeping world peace. To this day American bombs still end up in civilian/public buildings in Afghanistan. The only good thing about Bush having won 18 months back is that he is a LOT more interesting to listen to than Al "I'm a boring old fart" Gore.

Oops - my mistake. :o

I wasn't particularly referring to the death penalty laws; I just don't think that American laws are particularly soft and fluffy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm


America is the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, I will give them that.
[/B]

---

Yeah, actually I believe Japan takes the award for the most technologically advanced nation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Masterbandit666
Yeah, actually I believe Japan takes the award for the most technologically advanced nation.

---

It used to be Afghanistan, but they've slipped down the rankings lately.

Japan? Japan is a joke. I think you would be surprised at how much steel japan has actually used since the end of world war 2. It's less than Madagascar used. Think about it... The cars them make are plastic and rubber, and the electronics they make are silicon and plastic. They have no real army. The reason is because of the treaty that ended world war 2. It basically said that the US would protect Japan and that they could not produce military weapons. If the United States could scrap military spending, how much money do you think they would have?

Quote:

---

"Fundamentalists are the problem. On the one hand, we have fundamentalist Muslims blowing up planes because they think they'll go to heaven, and then we have fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics because they think they'll go to heaven. I say, let's send the fundamentalist Christians to fight the fundamentalist Muslims, and kill two birds with one stone."

---

Hahaha.

I agree

Masterbandit

How do you know a policy such as suggested above would not lead to an eventual WW. Last time a country adopted some sort of mass race based policy it did. While the policy itself may not lead to a World War it sure increases the chance and lays down the framework. You have to remember everyone percieves everything differently. While you and I may see the policy as just a way of securing or limiting terrorism in said country others won't. Many will see it as a form of discrimination, some will see it as the US saying "We are better than you, so you can't come here" etc... These perceptions build in time, and lead to actions by other contries reflecting those attitudes. From there it can lead to minor economic changes, increased prices, then we counter that etc.... Domino effect as some say.

If the US passed a sanction or law disallowing anyone of arabic decent from entering the country, what do you really think would hapen?

You think those countries will shrug it off and not care. I doubt it. Most will see it as some form of snobery or think it has some other intent behind it. Those countries may then decide that if we have no interest in allowing their citizens in our country, maybe we don't need their business and they won't ship goods to our contry. Then we would decide they don't need ours, or raise tarifs and visa versa. The cause effect would be endless.

Either way you look at it, any policy that discriminates against race, creed, color or religion is against fundamentaly what the US stands for and although some americans will suggest the idea, in the end you will most likely see them realize this point. While our form of freedom and government doesn't create the safest place to live and leaves us very open, I for one would gladly give up some safety to have the freedom i have and the ability to affect and make decisions in my government.

It was mentioned "The bush administration is doing a bullocks job at maintaining world peace" Hmmm i didn't know it was his administrations job to keep world peace, i usually figure that is the entire worlds responsability. But to anyone who shoulders more responsability than they should, my utmost regards go out to them for having the initiative to give it a try, whether they make the right or wrong decisions will remain to be seen as it takes many years to see the effects. It is always easier to wait for the "sheet to hit the fan" and chaos to ensue, then come in afterwards and clean up the mess (ride in on that white horse), than to be in the thick of it from the beggining doing what you can to prevent the sheet from hitting the fan.

As i said before about foriegn policy (interviening in the affairs of other countries). there is no blanket policy such as "no one of arab decent allowed in" that will fix anything, its all a case by case basis.