KrustyKidd

Without going into intricacies and lengthy political discussions, he took out a guy that was responsible for the deaths of millions while causing less than ten thousand deaths in the process. Overall, saving on average a thousand lives per month. Bad guys know they will get taken out as well and hence are that much less likely to try destabilizing actions. So, where is he a threat to world peace? Iraq - a democracy. Troubled, yet step by step and day by day becoming more peaceful. Iran - negotiating. North Korea - negotiating. So, what the hell are you talking about please?

Well then, seems the 'War on Terror' is aptly called then. If your neighbor is a terrorist, he gets killed or sent to prison, his co conspirators go to prison and if they try to avoid being captured are killed.

Sure. Kind of like a war when you have lots of fights to fight.

I would certainly like to hear your ideas for titles then. Global Battle Against Terrorism perhaps? They have to be short enogh to use in sentences so they can be used in conjunction with other ideas and such so, what do you suggest for a muilti facteted approach to the battles that occur from the intelligence and banking systems to the battlefeilds and halls of leadership the world over. All of them directed to do one thing - change the conditions that create terrorism, deny trerrorists support, protect societies from terrorism actions and, eliminate terrorists themselves.

Yes. And, note that this did not occur until the US invaded Iraq. Afterwards, the Saudis began to clean house as they knew the US was on the ground and would not leave them out to dry. Ever wonder why Al Queda is so inactive in Iraq? Because they are virtually fighting for their very existance n Saudi Arabia because the Saudis have taken that action. And, the US did pressure SA and SA has begun to make changes. Imposing by force????? How about ousting a dictator then providing for freedom to vote in what the Iraqis themselves want? 65% of Iraqis voted and at peril to their lives not from the US but insurgents. So where is this democracy imposed by force? This simple proof that the US only cares about oil I would like to see given that Bush risked his presidency and the lives of a lot of people to carry out this action. The money it has cost could have easily been used to bribe Saddam to supply the all oil the US needs for decades, at a fraction of the cost. So this particular aspect of the argument is a joke.

How about 'The War on Terror'? It is a multi fronted battle against a mentality that uses terror to promote themselves and their objective. The fronts being military, police, intelligence, financial, aid, political, and economic. I prefer the War on Terror as it is well edstablished that this encompasses all of the above. I suppose you could call it the 'activity designed to conduct a multi pronged approach to effect societal changes in areas which either create or aid terrorist activities' but, 'War on Terror' ios so much easier to say and, carries with it an aggressive edge to it that just draws in positive mindedness rather than being wishy washy.

They don't wish to change our society but rather theirs. The US is used as a tool or reason to unite and rally around in order to cement their cause. The object being a unification of the entire Muslim world ujder one group and religion - conservative Wahhabism. In this situation, the terrorists are not the end but rather the part we actually come in contact with. The power behind the Terrorists and the part that has to be changed is the movement itself and, in order to do that, you have to change their environment. The one that provides little hope and outlets for people to find meaning in life other than tho join a racial, cultural and religious movement rather than lead a life of enrichment and self fulfilment. Hence the War on Terror is not only a military fight but a political and cultural one as well. Note the emphasis on democracy and creating the contitions for as well as aid, economic empowerment and such. Uh? I suppose that if the terrorists were all hiding in cities with a police force then it might be. However, given that they are in areas where they might not have working addresses, serving sumonses is rather difficult. Made even more complicated by the fact most of the postmen delivering the documets would be subject to having their heads cut off. Hence, for the most part, a military gets the message across much better. And, delivers the conditions where democracy can take root, a very effective political solution to counter the control conservative Wahhabists use to create the terrorist mentality, and, recruits.

They wish to return the Muslim and Arab world back to the glory days of the Caliphates, the time when Islam was the greatest and longest lasting empire the world (to this day) has ever seen. They get there by having nothing on the go personally and thus, when given this vision and offered an opportunity to become part of it, they grab it, embrace it. Much like many people in situations all over the world yearn to belong to something or organizatin greater than themselves. Islam, Conservative Wahhabism and the dream of the Caliphate go hand in hand like Johny and June, especially when you take into consideration the Arabs have been owned by Attila the Hun and every European nation (including the bloody Dutch lol) since the Caliphate went downhill in the 13th century. And what prey tell is your theory for Russians being killed by Islamic terrorists? Chinas terrorist problem? Indonesia's? All of them have big problems and it must be their undying support for Israel? Who have they shot that only disagreed with them? I see an Iraqi government that makes it's own decisins, some of them the US does like and some they do not. And, nobody ever said this was done to simply be nice. It was done for about ten reasons, one of them being promoting and providing the conditions for democracy. The others range from regime change, indirect pressure on SA to establishing an American presence in the arrea as they moved out of SA. And they could have kept on working forever I'm sure. As Blix himself said, 'this is not a game of catch and catch can,' the Iraqi's had to provide proof they had disarmed and they did not. He found their cooperation was not 'immediate and unconditional' which was the wording used in the final resolution where Iraq was given 'one final chance' to adhere to the conditions of the ceasefire, providng 'immediate and unconditional cooperation'. What I find continually humorous is that the blame for this invasion from the left is always placed on Bush with Saddam getting a clean bill of health. Never once have I EVER seen the sugestion that possibly, maybeSaddam might have offered the 'unconditional and immediate cooperation' that he was required to do. Instead, the ball continually goes back to Bush for taking action. Any moron knew he was planning on invasion as soon as the attention shift went from WMDs to 'Regime Change so am not sure what the big deal of this news flash was or is. The connection with WMDs was one that had to be dealt with anyhow, and, provided a nice neat legal, moral and propaganda fueled rationale to carry on. It was only one of many of the of the reasons and only made the case for invasion even more stronger. Personally, I liked the idea of having 25 million people no longer under a dictatorship so WMDs and other reasons are secondary to that. Now, if say, on Jan 3 2003, Saddam completely opened up and was unconditional and completely cooperative and said that he had this, tried to hide that, had these notes, had arranged for this to be taken there and on and on. Actually opened the books to the world. Like he had been required to do since 1991. So much so that come February, Blix would have said that the cooperation was unconditional, what possible reason could Bush have used to invade if Saddam was opening up the entire country like he was supposed to? If you tell me a glib statement like 'I'm sure he would have found something' then I'll be certain you are argueing out of emotion rather than reason so please, give me some stuff to work with.

duplicate post

Dwindling? Hardly. The second largest coalition partner (the Iraqis themselves) are growing in number so is it any wonder that the other members would lower their presence as origionally planned? The US themselves is planning on cutting their own numbers so how does that fit into this 'cut an run' propagandist moron's editorials?

Well, under that supposition, since Israel has never said they wished any nation destroyed, then all Muslim countries should stop saying Israel should not exist. Otherwise, having nukes and denying your detractors same makes complete sense. The Muslim countries you speak of all wish to destroy Israel. Their nukes are defensive and, the Arabs historicly attack Israel time and time again thus leaving any sane person with the cerainty that if they had them, they would use them offensively. Hardly a case of just being 'even.'

UN Definition of Terrorism And those appliances you had to throw out I take it had the bodies of dead, mutilated loved ones in them? If not, then it was an act of vandalism, not terror. If you consider vandalism terrorism, you must lead a sheltered life indeed. Edit: I was in a bar saturday night and was a young fellow was given a drink that he thought was rather weak. When he complained, the bartender gave him an extra shot and told him (after some argueing) that he would be thrown out if he did not desist. I would consider this a form of terrorism if I followed your rule book.

See, the above is hubris. The thread topic is reality.

It is unsportsmanlike, especially the oxygen. Minimizing the effects of altitude really diminishes the challenge of Everest. Only a few people are concerned with challenges. Most just wish to get to the top and be there, if only for a moment. Jeeesh, like, if I wanted to be first, I would go and be the first guy to have a Canadian Airborne Flag there. Whatever. Get me there period. Sides, if you wish to do something challenging, K2 is the one, not Everest. You guys keep putting these people down for not being heros and stuff when al they are is tourists who have paid good, bad, easy or hard earned money to be there and say they have. Some might try to say they are heros, others not but that's up to them afterwards, not you. To me, I wish i had the cash to spare, I'd like to be on the top of the highest mountain on earth once in my life. However, it's not a passion, that one is reserved for Doug Hansen, the postal worker who worked double shifts for years to be put off by Hall once a couple hundred feet from the top and then, two years later went back again. For him, there was no turning back and, he had to get to the top. He knew he wouldn't make it back probably but had to go to be there. At something like 4 pm, he was there on the top by himself, last of the group. No hero to anybody but it was his own dream.

Page 2 is a pretty big correction. Normally they are burried big time. A postage stamp sized one on the front page is a waste, better where it was. Ya it seems.

The people are paid tourists, not long term residents of Nepal. My 'leftist' view of things gives people who have worked and paid money, the right to do what is legal. If that price includes shitting on rocks, so be it. They won't come back so if you wish somebody to pick it up and be moralistic about it all, give them a cut rate for doing an oxygebn bottle return or something, fine the operators or, get the government to place the restrictions on them. That's a right wing view BTW, and, so is the next observation; If they were doing that in my country where I live, I'd be out there with a gun making them pick it up. No thanks. I gave at the office. I'd rather climb K2 or Everest to be at the top of the world. Not as an accomplishment but to just know I have been there. Kinda like being at Petra, Jerusalem, the Pyramids and so on.

And I suppose you were the only good person there? Where did you shit? Why won't the Nepalese government raise the ante a few grand and pack garbage removal clauses into the permits or hire out and reflect that cost? Not to mention airfare, work lost in training and the trip itself, aclimitization, equipment, and such. In reality, Doug Hansen paid a hundred thousand to do it plus lost wages. It took him years to save the money so, is two years work the value of human life at 27000 feet? I'm sure everybody would have dropped the guy off a bottle of oxygen if they had five or ten to spare but they don't. And there are no 'spare' Sherpas or staff. To save this guys life if it were possible would have meant people who have sacrificed not getting to the top or jeapardizing their saftety. Are you, as the tour operator going to go bankrupt to make a call? What are you going to do when your client says 'fuck you, I'm a thousand feet from the top of Everest' and goes off without you? If I went, it would be very hard and very expensive for me to do so. I wouldn't go there to see my reason for the trip be washed away by somebody else. If you wish to bitch and grip about the humanity, don't blame those who paid but rather those who are making the money - the Nepalese government for not having contingencies and the Sherpas and tour operators for same. Last trip I made was the Nahanni. Cost me a few bucks. Flew in rather than take a month to drag the boats up stream a couple hundred miles but was fun. A trip up to Everest would be a hoot too. I certainly wouldn't do it for glory and am sure many don't either. Well, at 49, I cvertainly doubt I would be in any kind of shape at 27 thousand feet as an amatuer to do anything other than hope that I made my next footstep so can only surmise you are blaming the Nepalese government, Sherpas and tour operators. The later two have responsibilities to their clients first. Don't know. Were you there? Did you shut down a forty some odd person tour costing millions of dollars to save this guy or just let the amatuers off on their own hoping they all made it either to the top or survived period? I don't want you to think I'm a hard case that doesn't believe in purity or nature, just that in this argument you are blaming the wrong people. The ones that have sacrifieced and paid money which they have had to work long hours for (and in some case were simply given) are not at fault here. Everybody wants to get what they want for the cheapest price, least amount of effort and such. They are merely doing what humans do. Those operatring the thing are also doing what they have to do and are under pressure to have the best record for getting people to the top at the cheapest price. Call off the tour and you go out of business as the next operator takes your clients. They will, in order to survive cut prices, take chances, leave oxygen bottles, poop packs and whatever debris they have to in order to keep costs down. The only way in which things will change is if it is regulated and to a degree where it is level for all operators and, still profitable. As we all know, businesses do not do this on their own until they smell the winds of change. Then it becomes an advertising gimmick like 'Ernie Everest's Eco Tours' - We go up, but on the way back, we save lives and pick up poop packs. Later, the Nepalese government places conditions. Something they should already be doing. They are the only ones that can change the track on this railroad, as much as others on the thread would like to give blame a more greedy and human face.

In many cases sure. That postal worker that died in 96 I would certainly make an exception to though. He was driven and was actually turned back in a previous expedition a few hundred feet from the top. He went back again on his own dime for whatever reason. I am certain it wasn't fame but rather a dream to be there. You can't get there any other way than by climbing. Helecpoters won't work at that altitude and parachuting in is certainly not an option hence, those who simply wish to be there are lumped in with those who wish to brag they climbed and, those who wish to do it with no legs, blind, oldest woman man dog or camel for that matter. And, those who are pure, like heavilly subsidized Hillary.

Best way to support the troops is to tell them that they won't change a thing and lots of them will die for nothing. I support the troops! Go us! Yea

And if one of the charges slipped and fell, subsequently dying? Oh ya. And if they were not getting paid, nobody would have been there to save the guy anyhow. Just an empty mountain waiting for the next person who was 'pure' to come by a few years later. That would be the Nepalese government you would be directing the question to. They charge big bucks for permits to climb there. When the Hall expedition surfered their tragety, Hillary spoke out against commercial tours of Everest. This here is boone for his cause. Hillary can say what he wants as he wasn't paying the bill for his climb though, rather the British Everest Expeditionary Force was. If I worked hard, trained hard and put forth enough sacrifice to pay for all the things I had to get to get there, I would and should be able to make my own decisions based on the realities on the mountain rather than some guy who enjoyed a free climb and rather than pay out, actually made money off it. Here is the story of 'Sir' Tenzing Norgay (only white guys get knighted on Everest it seems) as Hillary explains it. Later, the weakling founded a company, Tenzing Norgay Adventures, that offers trekking in the Himalaya. Doing commercial tours.

Taliban were foreigners for a large part. Nobody has ever been nice there. Nice and money wins friends and influences people. Now, think positive and back up the troops rather than tell them they will fail and their efforts won't change a thing.

Great rant! Always a pleasure to read a good one that has some justification in it. A couple of points though, not that they take away from the above work of art however, Inglis would be able to hold his ground where Sherpas could not. Without him, they would have been either taking some other person who was paying their way or, they would be scapping out a living hip deep in lama dung on some windy mountainside somewhere.

I think we all know that the Iranian Council would do this if they could. That isn't the point of the thread. The point is the NP got the info from some sources that now are blaming the NP for their error. We also have a PM who ran with the story as well. In short, a lot of people went down with this and, the sources are trying to blame the users for the error. I'm not a conspiracy theorist so am just trying to sort out what is at the heart of this matter. The NP in my mind is not greatly at fault as explained in their appology, they had three or four sources, the PM should have been a bit more prudent but, given the recent rhetoric from Tehran and the fact the story came from the NP and not a ranting blogeer, is also understandable but unfortunate. Which leaves the origional listed source as the mystery. What's up with them? Why did they tell the NP this was a fact and now, are saying the NP was their source for the info?

A lot of times a reporter will ask a question that is pegging a politician into a position like 'so will you be putting forth a bill banning gay marriage?' and then getting the obvious answer of 'no.' Posibly this is one of those cases except in a more complicated way? Wiesenthal group gives story to NP so NP can run it. Independent witnesses go with Wiesenthal center and when story runs, Iranians catagoricly deny it even though they were thinking of doing it? Wiesenthal center with contacts all over the place gets Iranians head off at the pass (for now) and in process (unintentionally but unavoidably) makes NP look like morons (which is of little or no consequence to them) then, to shunt blame plays games afterwards. Sound good?

I did agree somewhat that this was overplayed but, the new development associated with this story that Gerry posted in the International forum certainly does warrent some investigation and, revives this story to be more than a simple mistake on the NP part.