Is Germany more interested in profits than world safety?

Remove all ads!

The war on drugs and the war against terrorism hove totally different meanings. The war on drugs is a psychological battle. If we were to start bombing governments were drug production was the largest cash crop, several US state capitals would be ash.

We are not going to invade Colombia to shut off the flow of something that people inflict upon themselves.

Back to the topic. If the German government takes no action against the organization that used a German port to provide a necessary agent to create WMD to a rogue nation, in violation to an agreement that the German government entered into, then they are complicit. Argue your way around that.

And please don’t do it with the, “but the US did this, and the US did that” tactic. I have already admitted that we are complicit in this whole situation. I am just tired of hearing how the evil US is responsible for everything and the altruistic Euros just want peace!

Fabius,

All countries are responsible for all transactions that occur within their ports and boarders, regardless of who the parties are.

[ February 18, 2003, 19:29: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

It is not that, by any law, not even US law iirc, it is prohibited to export sodium cyanide ... or acetone ... or trithium for instance (needed to make neutron bombs ... or night sights or night glowing watch numbers)... IIRC it's not on the cocom list* either so what?

*(Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Control), a treaty comitee that releases a non-proliferation product list ... originally intended to refuse the eastern block access to modern western technology.

[ February 18, 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Actualy Darkwolk the US has been sending troops into Columbia to fight the "war on drugs" for years.It is well documentated.While not a full scale force we do operate their in a military capacity.

 

Ragusa,

I was not referring to that treaty. Read the article again.

Dorion,

I never claimed that we do not have a military presence in Colombia. I stated that we are not going to go to war with countries for exporting cocaine to the US, especially if their government is somewhat cooperating with us in trying to stop it(we wouldn't be going to war with Iraq if they cooperated either). Are you stating that I am wrong and that the US military is involved in an invasion of Colombia? I don't remember the Congress declaring war on the nation of Colombia. If we are invading and in open hostilities, our troops have been there too long to be by executive order alone. We are also in violation of or agreement with the association of Utterly-useless Nations for engaging in a war without a formal declaration. Please enlighten me!

Our troops are there at the welcome of the Columbian government. Totally different than what happened in Afghanistan and what is most likely going to happen in Iraq.

 

I never claimed we were at war with Columbia however to state the goverment welcomed us is misleading.It was only through strong economic threats that the Columbians "welcomed" our troops into the country.

 

Darkwolf, it's like that: There are only a few reasons that would make an export of natrium cyanide to North Korea illegal. As stated in the article itself it's a dual use product. That means it has quite a couple of civil applications as well as military uses.

So among the possible reasons rendering that export illegal could be national law. There is no german law that prohibits the export of n.c. to north korea. European law also does not have a rule like that. So has US law - and that wouldn't be applicable here anyway.

Leaves international law, especially the treaty I named which also doesn't lists n.c. as a prohibited material. That is why I named that treaty even though it is not named in that article.

PS: AFAIK the "war on drugs" is a term first used by president Nixon in 1970. Iirc it has since then become a common term in US public discussion. Considering the size of US counterdrug operations involving military assets and personnel the term "war on drugs" is indeed fitting.

[ February 19, 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

so, every country is responsible for what goes on in its ports and harbours?
that means the US is responsible for the average 10 broken arrows every year, the illegal arms sales which go through its ports, the thousands of tonnes of drugs which go through its ports every week, the illegal immigration and emigration through its ports, the illegal chemicals which pass through its ports every day... the US is the and i stress 'the' worst country in the world for preventing illegal shipments through its assets

 

@Ragusa:

Damn! You're well read. I'm impressed. Although, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I think everyone must try to be aware of current events. It's not enough to listen to the opinion of a friend, relative or teacher. But this doesn't mean that I agree with all your comments. I'm seeing a different side from what you show in the other boards.

 

Now, I haven't read the whole of the posts, but if the substance the Germans are selling to the N. Koreans is not currently on a list of forbidden substances, then leave the Germans alone. If it is a forbidden substance, I don't care how many medical or otherwise benevolent uses it has, they deserve all the criticism they get. As for Americans and protecting their interests, every country does that. The US tries to make it sound like they do things out of Justice and Decency, and that's fine if they want to do that -- no one with any brains believes them. But that doesn't mean I condemn them for standing up for themselves. As long as they don't violate international treaties or laws, more power to them!

For example, the US cites Iraq's lousy human rights record as justification for the war. Now, if they really cared about that, they'd be threatening Pakistan right now. But Pakistan is an ally, and Iraq is an enemy, so there you are.