[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
But let's look at this from another logical perspective. We have not seen the use of such weapons in 56 years.

It is not so much use of nukes as much as European fear we will start a bombing campaign or a gun-ho invasion of Afghanistan which will draw them all into it.

Interesting is that the European public has more support for a US position than some of their governments. The same was a problem after a German nighclub bombing by Libyan agents. The US was not permitted to fly over France or Spain to attack Kadaffi. However if an American was in France during that week (as two separate parties detailed), the French people suddenly all spoke English and could not be nicer to Americans. Again, goverments feared the American response but the people loved it.

But realistically, after the US has been trying to keep the world in check for so long (good and bad), it's time to give back.

The has been made painfully obvious so many times. The French could not even send one armored battalion to the Persian Gulf war. Only the British could provide military equipment comparible to America's response. In Bosnia, most of the advanced electronics and even air rescue abilities had to be American. The Europeans have long acknowledged their inferiority, have discussed addressing such problems extensively, and have acomplished almost nothing. They are still depended on Americans even for their own nation's defense. But they still are not apologetic.

The Europeans are even angry at their inability to effect a Middle East peace without American involvement. It is frustrating to them to see a situation deteriorate, not be able to do anything, and watch the Americans become disconnected from any peace process. Yes they understand their impotence, keep talking of solutions, but never quite action on those solutions.


As for the Afghans, they are not worried about being blown to smithereens. Have you seen their capital city? It is still blown to smithereens. Afghanistan is worried about losing access to military weapons, supplies necessary to make those weapons possbile, NGO aid that provided their armies with food and medicine, and money to complete the package. They really are not worried about American bombers bombing rubble just as N Viet Nam had nothing to worry about (as clearly known and delineated in the Pentagon Papers). For moderates in Afghanistan, it is loss of aid from ie. Pakistan that worries them - although they will not admit it.

What is a "responsible" news source, in your opinion tw?

Irresponsible by categories. Worst are the local TV news reports which ranks up there with Robertson's 700 Club, the National Inquirer, Insight Magazine (if I remember the name of that propaganda sheet), and many of the local daily newspapers that feature, to excess, the latest auto crash on their front page.

A slightly more responsible but still suspect news service include the Daily News (Philly and NYC), NBCs network news such as Dateline and ABC's Barbara Walters interviews which are (both)more interested in how 'You' feel rather than facts technical , many issues of Time Magazine, and Louis Rukiser of Wall Street Week.

Responsible news sources include CBS News (usually, even though their credibility has been weakened by and since when 60 Minutes reports on the cigarette industry were quashed), ABC network news (so many Junior ABC news reporters have gone to other networks to become Senior News bureau managers or star reporters - ie Jeff Greenfield and Fox's Washington bureau chief (name forgotten) because ABC is so chock full of superior talent such as the quirky and always interesting Robert Kurlwich and the legendary Ted Koppel), the BBC, Radio Netherlands, PBS's Nightly Business Report (especially the ethical Paul Kangas), the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and, of course, The Economist magazine.