Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Oct 8, 2009, 04:15 PM

Al Qaeda tells China's Uyghurs to prepare for holy war - CNN.com

A new spokesman for Al Qaeda has called for jihad against China for oppressing the Uyghers. The problems of the Uyghers is not new but Al Qaeda commencing a holy war on their behalf is. Perhaps the US has made it too hot for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and they will find it a little quieter over the mountains in Xingang?

The west has ignored the plight of the Uyghers who have seen their country steadily taken over by migrants from the East and recent violence has pointed to simmering ethnic tensions

tomder55 · Oct 9, 2009, 03:07 AM

The west has ignored the plight of the Uyghers who have seen their country steadily taken over by migrants from the East and recent violence has pointed to simmering ethnic tensions

What do you suggest we do ? There are many people who like to point out the terrible plight of the oppressed ,and then condemn actions taken on their behalf. Or when something is done they say why are you there when you could be here ?

paraclete · Oct 9, 2009, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

What do you suggest we do ? There are many people who like to point out the terrible plight of the oppressed ,and then condemn actions taken on their behalf. Or when something is done they say why are you there when you could be here ?

It is one more case of an oppressed people being ignored because it is too hard, the Afghans were ignored until it became important to the US, the Iraqi were ignored until it became important to the US, but we can be sure that as China shores up the US economy, the Uyghers will be ignored and one more ethnic group will slowly disappear

speechlesstx · Oct 9, 2009, 04:54 AM

Perhaps Al Qaeda reads the NY Times.

The complaint seems to be as usual that the U.S. needs to stop meddling in the affairs of others, but when the affairs of others need to meddled with why hasn't the U.S. done something? You guys are a fickle bunch.

tomder55 · Oct 9, 2009, 04:57 AM

Clete I'm waiting for the Aussie intervention in the lands occupied by China. Forget the US . Our President didn't have the testicular fortitude to meet the Dali Lama.

ETWolverine · Oct 9, 2009, 07:26 AM

I love it... Liberals telling the USA, "Don't interfere... unless we say you should interfere... and then only when, where and how we say you should interfere."

What a hypocrite.

Elliot

speechlesstx · Oct 9, 2009, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I love it... Liberals telling the USA, "Don't interfere... unless we say you should interfere... and then only when, where and how we say you should interfere."

Exactly. Don't you remember Save Darfur's campaign to get Bush to intervene in Darfur a few years back, or Time Magazine wanting to invade Myanmar?

paraclete · Oct 9, 2009, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

clete I'm waiting for the Aussie intervention in the lands occupied by China. Forget the US . Our President didn't have the testicular fortitude to meet the Dali Lama.

You will wait along time, Xingang isn't Timor Leste, and China isn't Indonesia. What we need is a UN plebisite allowing the Uygher to tell the world what they want. These problems are UN problems but they have ignored Tibet and Xingang because they were busy with other problems, after all they can only tackle one problem at a time. No, unfortunately the US is the only nation with enough resources to tackle China and they won't do it because it would destroy their economy. It's the price you pay for exporting your industries, outsourcing to low cost countries and allowing permanent seats on the security council, far better to outsource it to Al Qaeda the way they outsourced Afghanistan to the Mujahadeen. Things ultimately come full circle and our old friends will be our friends again

Why should Obama meet the Dali Lama, Krudd didn't meet him either. DL is just a tourist these days. No good photo ops there. I'm waiting for Aussie intervention in WA and Qld following a successful intervention in NT

tomder55 · Oct 12, 2009, 05:03 AM

Clete ,you hypocritically call for US action while at the same time bitterly complain about the US role in the world.
You like to compare us the sterotype of the cowboy western. Well then... you are the citizen of the town that fears and loaths the sheriff until the bad guys come riding into town guns blazing . Then you go running to the sheriff pleading "do something " .

paraclete · Oct 12, 2009, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete ,you hypocritically call for US action while at the same time bitterly complain about the US role in the world.
You like to compare us the the sterotype of the cowboy western. Well then ...you are the citizen of the town that fears and loaths the sheriff until the bad guys come riding into town guns blazing . Then you go running to the sheriff pleading "do something " .

I have great difficulty with the UN being synonymous with the US. If you read what I wrote the word UN was used. The US ignored the UN and went into Iraq playing US Marshall and ignoring the local Sheriff. WE now have the position where the US is unilaterally making decisions for NATO in Afghanistan. The correct forum for dealing with the issue of the Uyghers is the UN. Their situation should not be ignored but unilateral action by the US wasn't suggested. I don't want the US to be Sheriff to the world, Tom but I don't want my country shoring up corrupt regimes because the US thinks it's a great idea. We had enough of that in Vietnam. So Tom I don't call for "US" action and I think US action in the region of the middle east etc is part of the problem. If the UN is a paper tiger, I think the US has made it so.

tomder55 · Oct 12, 2009, 05:38 AM

Here was your direct quote :
No, unfortunately the US is the only nation with enough resources to tackle China and they won't do it.

The US is hardly dictating to NATO the Afghanistan theater. As for them being a paper tiger ;yes they are. But the reason they are is that the European nations of NATO piggy backed on US protection while they spent the resources needed for defense on their nanny-states .

paraclete · Oct 12, 2009, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

here was your direct quote :
No, unfortunately the US is the only nation with enough resources to tackle China and they won't do it.

The US is hardly dictating to NATO the Afghanistan theater. As for them being a paper tiger ;yes they are. But the reason they are is that the European nations of NATO piggy backed on US protection while they spent the resources needed for defense on their nanny-states .

Statement of Fact Tom and I went on to say why which you left out. If you are going to quote me don't be selective. It was not a call to arms but a lament for what is reality. I didn't say NATO is a paper tiger I said the UN is a paper tiger but yes the US has been telling NATO it is not doing enough. Europe has they right to use its money any way it wants and the US has the right to withdraw its protection as it did in Poland and undoubtedly will do elsewhere

ETWolverine · Oct 13, 2009, 06:56 AM

Paraclete,

The problem with calling these "UN Issues" is that the UN has no significant military power to enforce their policies outside of the power the US grants them by lending them their military. The French military has proven itself less than capable. The Swiss troops, while very capable and well armed, are corrupt and have a history of taking "favors" from unwilling women in the countries they are ostensibly there to protect. The Brits have a smaller military than we do, and have limited ability to project that military power into other countries. The Russians are under-trained and poorly armed. So if the UN wants to enforce its policies, it needs the US in order to do it.

Which means that the US would be getting involved in the affairs of other countries again.

Which brings us back to Tom's point... that on one hand you demand that the USA stay out of it, but on the other hand you call for more US intervention (either directly, or via the UN, it doesn't really matter). It is a hypocritical position.

For that matter, it seems hypocritical to me to say that the USA has no right to interfere with foreign countries, but the UN does. What gives the UN that right when you specifically say that the USA does NOT have it? What makes it wrong for a single country to interfere in the matters of other countries, but OK for a body of 140+ countries to interfere? By what logic is one OK but the other is not?

Elliot

paraclete · Oct 13, 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Paraclete,

The problem with calling these "UN Issues" is that the UN has no significant military power to enforce their policies outside of the power the US grants them by lending them their military. The French military has proven itself less than capable. The Swiss troops, while very capable and well armed, are corrupt and have a history of taking "favors" from unwilling women in the countries they are ostensibly there to protect. The Brits have a smaller military than we do, and have limited ability to project that military power into other countries. The Russians are under-trained and poorly armed. So if the UN wants to enforce its policies, it needs the US in order to do it.

Which means that the US would be getting involved in the affairs of other countries again.

Which brings us back to Tom's point... that on one hand you demand that the USA stay out of it, but on the other hand you call for more US intervention (either directly, or via the UN, it doesn't really matter). It is a hypocritical position.

For that matter, it seems hypocritical to me to say that the USA has no right to interfere with foreign countries, but the UN does. What gives the UN that right when you specifically say that the USA does NOT have it? What makes it wrong for a single country to interfere in the matters of other countries, but ok for a body of 140+ countries to interfere? By what logic is one OK but the other is not?

Elliot

The UN has a charter to which each country (member nation) has subscribed. This gives the UN a right to "interfere" which the US does not have but has assumed. The US has no right to dictate to the Israeli and Palestinians that they should negotiate, that right belongs to the UN which after all created Israel. The US has no right to tell the Iranians they cannot have a nuclear facility, that right belongs to the UN, but because the US has supplied troops to further its own ends it has usurped the role of the UN as it did when it invaded Iraq. The UN doesn't work because it is seen as an extension of US power and the only time it functions is when the US lets it off the leash. What I am saying is not that the US do its thinking and tell the Chinese what to do but that the UN function as it should and call a member nation to account

tomder55 · Oct 13, 2009, 06:09 PM

Clete ;besides a handful of meaningless "peacekeeping missions" led by 3rd world rapists and bribe takers ,the UN has no clout or ability to assume any lead role in interventions. It is completely corrupt organization founded on a flawed premise. It should be scrapped all together ,and a new Organization of nations that respect liberty should be formed . I have no interet and desire to support an organization that would give equal footing to jack-booted despots .

paraclete · Oct 13, 2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete ;besides a handful of meaningless "peacekeeping missions" led by 3rd world rapists and bribe takers ,the UN has no clout or ability to assume any lead role in interventions. It is completely corrupt organization founded on a flawed premise. It should be scrapped all together ,and a new Organization of nations that respect liberty should be formed . I have no interet and desire to support an organization that would give equal footing to jack-booted despots .

And the US has such a great record of human rights in its interventions. You give support to those jackbooted despots.
I agree the UN is flawed, flawed because any power it has has been twarted by the do nothing security council and usurped by the US. The UN was formed to maintain the empires existing at the end of WWII. It is a tool of imperialism, but it has brought all nations to the table and for that reason it should not be disbanded but reformed so it is no longer a tool of US imperialism and foreign policy