THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

revel, How true! Except Bush has made most of our allies as part of the problem. Bush doesn't use diplomacy, because he's afraid of a repeat of what happened before he preempted his war in Iraq. Most everybody said "no" except the Brits. The others were token "yesses" and some were even encouraged with money - billions. Turkey turned it down.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
What is the best way for us to fight terrorism?

By convincing members of societies around the world who are prone to terrorism, that our way of doing things is superior to that offered by the terrorists - and the use of force is the terrorists' way.

I don't know anyone who knows how to do that.

Quote:

What are the consequences of leaving Iraq before we succeed?

For Iraq? Regional warfare.

For US? Increased resources to spend on defense at home and offense in places that matter, IE, attacking Al Qaeda instead of playing around in Iraq.

As you know, I think there is conclusive evidence that al-Qaeda is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, et cetera. I think it best now if we concentrate on ridding al-Qaeda from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:
What are the consequences of staying in Iraq until we succeed?

We strengthen our enemies position, waste huge amounts of money, lose national prestige around the world, and weaken our own armed forces greatly. And please be honest and admit that you're talking about 20-30 years of fighting.

I too think we are talking about up to 30 years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan before succeeding there. I care nothing about all the national prestige we have lost and have yet to lose, because I think all of it and more are retrievable once we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:
What is the best way for us to defend ourselves at home?

Increased use of technology and old methods (fences) to close the borders. Increased screening of shipping containers coming into America. Education of the populace. A stark and objective examination of our foreign policies around the world.

While I think these ways are necessary, I think them insufficient for maintaining an adequate defense.

Quote:
What is the best way for us to defend ourselves in Iraq?

To leave the country and attack AQ - probably in Pakistan.

I think we can eventually succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan presents a problem different than the other two. The government of Pakistan, while allowing al-Qaeda to seize sanctuary in Pakistan, is not currently capable of denying al-Qaeda sanctuary. Thus we must somehow convince the Pakistan government to accept our aid in riding Pakistan of al-Qaeda, or, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must replace the Pakistan government and remove al-Qaeda all by ourselves. Based on our capabilities to date, I recommend the first alternative and see what happens,

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cyclo wrote :

Quote:

By convincing members of societies around the world who are prone to terrorism, that our way of doing things is superior to that offered by the terrorists - and the use of force is the terrorists' way.

ican replied :

Quote:

I don't know anyone who knows how to do that.

isn't that what britain did in northern ireland ?
they tried for decades "to bring peace by force" , i believe - but it did not work .

finally , britain realized that by working with the opposing parties they might stand a chance of achieving a period of reletive calm and eventually achieve peace .

this isn't necessarily the peace britain and the orange men wanted initially .

it seems that both sides realized that they could not have all they wanted , that they would have to negotiate and settle for less than they might have wanted .
i'm sure that there might still be some hard feelings on both sides , but for now the peace seems to be holding .
(on a BBC re-broadcast recently , british ex-politiciians , journalists and scholars debated tony blair's legacy . while most could find fault with some of his actions , they pretty well all gave him credit for finishing the peace proces in northern ireland) .

i think the U.S. is actually on the right path by calling for a (peace - eventually) conference/meeting between all the nations of the middle-east .
my hope is that the U.S. doesn't throw in the towel and says : "it doesn't work , they want to continue fighting " , if there is little (no) achievement .
for it to work , a lot of patience will be required and setbacks will have to be accepted as normal .

this isn't like striking a deal between two consenting parties .
i think many of us have in the past pointed out the difference of striking a deal the american way - "let's do it - we can play another round of golf once we've settled things " and the VERY SLOW negotiating process in the middle east and much of asia : introductions , many cups of tea , long breaks , more cups of tea and perhaps eventually a few words will be exchanged ... and tomorrow we might meet again .
(i think i posted some time ago about the british writer - he wrote "prince of the marshes" - who was one of the interim administrators in iraq and now lives in afghanistan .
he said during an interview on CCB that it takes him about half-an-hour to get from his front-office to his back-office - perhaps 200 feet - because he has to stop and exchange pleasantries with all the other people before he can move on .
and these are people he is friendly with ! if you want to find out how difficult the negotiations were with the "not so friendly" chieftains in iraq , i recommend you read his book .
this may seem strange to us , but it is the middle-eastern way - it's the oriental way !) .
hbg

0 Replies

I doubt very much Bush is in a position to lead any peace conference in the Middle East.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote :

Quote:

I doubt very much Bush is in a position to lead any peace conference in the Middle East.

i would think that there are americans (politicians , diplomats , statesmen/women , people with knowledge of the midle-east ... ) who can take on the job of starting negotiations with various middle-eastern countries and "centres of influence" .
all they would need is a go-ahead from president bush .
the possible success will likely lie several years in the future , but what could possible be lost by starting it now ("better late than never !) ?
hbg

for a preview of an upcoming book about the ulster negotiations , go to the link :
TONY BLAIR'S FIXER IN ULSTER

0 Replies

I personally think it's a bad idea to start diplomatic negotiations right now, because none or very few of the Arab countries trust Bush, and they'll start from a very defensive position that'll take years to correct. If we start negotiations with another president that at least has the appearance of "fairness," they're more apt to talk freely and accept compromise. Just mho.

0 Replies

Quote:

all they would need is a go-ahead from president bush .

Never going to happen. It would be an admission that his approach didn't work; and that's the whole problem in the first place here.

I don't really disagree with you though.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nuke Pakistan's border where bin Laden is thought to be.

CI; surely you aren't serious?

0 Replies

Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

cyclo wrote :

Quote:
By convincing members of societies around the world who are prone to terrorism, that our way of doing things is superior to that offered by the terrorists - and the use of force is the terrorists' way.

ican replied :

Quote:
I don't know anyone who knows how to do that.

isn't that what britain did in northern ireland ?
they tried for decades "to bring peace by force" , i believe - but it did not work .

finally , britain realized that by working with the opposing parties they might stand a chance of achieving a period of reletive calm and eventually achieve peace .
...
hbg

Perhaps the Brits and the Irish were able to negotiate peace only after decades of trying to win peace by force. Probably both were finally tired of dying for nothing.

Maybe that is exactly what is required in the middle east. Maybe decades of mass dying are a prerequisite for changing the attitudes of the beligerents so that they finally begin to think more of their kids' futures than there own mindless hatreds.

On the otherhand, in most cases achieving victory has been a pre-requisite for achieving peace, and the British-Irish method is typically more costly over the long run of a conflict before successful negotiation prerequisites can be met.

I don't know who today knows how, without much prior bloodshed while the negotiations proceed, and without one of the waring parties achieving victory, to negotiate peace among waring parties.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

Like he don't now? At some point he is going to die (if he is not already, don't know if I really buy that video) then the same excuse will happen anyway.

Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11; as a matter of justice he should be caught and put on trial and sentenced if possible regardless of any excuses.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

ican, You are slow; all suicide bombers are martyrs.

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

so it might be best to wish bL a long , peaceful and healthy life so he won't become a martyr Question

hbg

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

ican, You are slow; all suicide bombers are martyrs.

Osama bin Laden is/was a recruiter of, and a very effective inspiration to potential suicidal mass murder candidates. If he were to be either executed or incarcerated by the USA, bin Laden would be an even greater inspiration and therefore an even more effective recruiter of suicidal mass murderers.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

ican, You are slow; all suicide bombers are martyrs.

Osama bin Laden is/was a recruiter of, and a very effective inspiration to potential suicidal mass murder candidates. If he were to be either executed or incarcerated by the USA, bin Laden would be an even greater inspiration and therefore an even more effective recruiter of suicidal mass murderers.

F*cking unbelievable that you would write such a thing.

There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner. All you are trying to do is explain away the failure of your leader to catch him. Pathetic.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ican wrote :

Quote:
If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

so it might be best to wish bL a long , peaceful and healthy life so he won't become a martyr
hbg

No, I think it best if he were to have already died or were to die from kidney desease--one of his afflictions-- or some other desease.

That way his cave and not Bush would be his killer. I can see it now. Some of 'em would subsequently seek their revenge by terrorizing that cave. :wink:

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

ican, You are slow; all suicide bombers are martyrs.

Osama bin Laden is/was a recruiter of, and a very effective inspiration to potential suicidal mass murder candidates. If he were to be either executed or incarcerated by the USA, bin Laden would be an even greater inspiration and therefore an even more effective recruiter of suicidal mass murderers.

F*cking unbelievable that you would write such a thing.

There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner. All you are trying to do is explain away the failure of your leader to catch him. Pathetic.

Cycloptichorn

You are too easily upset by that with which you disagree!

There is no evidence that, "There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner."

You actually think, I'm trying to "Explain away my leader's failure to catch him!" Rolling Eyes

I've said here a multitude of times that my leader is incompetent. Having stated that a multitude of times, what need is there for me to additionally explain any of my leader's failures.

I thought it obvious that I was trying to explain why I thought it would be a waste of American life and treasure to concentrate on executing or incarcerating bin Laden. I argued for why I thought that loss of our life and treasure would buy more harm than good.

So come on now! Get serious! Why do you think I'm wrong?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

ican, You are slow; all suicide bombers are martyrs.

Osama bin Laden is/was a recruiter of, and a very effective inspiration to potential suicidal mass murder candidates. If he were to be either executed or incarcerated by the USA, bin Laden would be an even greater inspiration and therefore an even more effective recruiter of suicidal mass murderers.

F*cking unbelievable that you would write such a thing.

There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner. All you are trying to do is explain away the failure of your leader to catch him. Pathetic.

Cycloptichorn

You are too easily upset by that with which you disagree!

There is no evidence that, "There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner."

You actually think, I'm trying to "Explain away my leader's failure to catch him!" I've said here a multitude of times that my leader is incompetent. Having stated that a multitude of times, what need is there for me to additionally explain any of my leader's failures.

I thought it obvious that I was trying to explain why I thought it would be a waste of American life and treasure to concentrate on executing or incarcerating bin Laden. I argued for why I thought that loss of our life and treasure would buy more harm than good.

So come on now! Get serious! Why do you think I'm wrong?

Okay - say what you want about OBL, he's displayed excellent planning and strategy when it comes to provoking the US to the ends he desires.

An objective view of the situation would show: 6 years after 9/11, AQ is alive and strong; the US is occupying lands in the middle of the Muslim world, exactly as he told them we would; we have spent massive amounts of money and significant amounts of lives, and not had much success in shutting down the global AQ organization whatsoever.

There's every reason to believe that OBL is behind their strategies - strategies which are working. To get rid of their leader, preferrably to capture him, try him, and execute him when he is found guilty (seeing as he's admitted to being behind 9/11, there's not much chance he wouldn't) would be a victory for the US. Would some look upon him as a martyr, then? Probably. But no more then are actively recruited and given accurate and working plans by him today.

It seems odd to me, that one would argue that leaving the opponent's extremely successful and inspiration leader, alive, is preferable to capturing or killing him. Not to mention, that we would be disrupting the central core of planners for our enemies at the same time; you don't think that's important, either?

Tell you what; let's play chess, and you spend all your time focusing on my pawns, maybe capture a bishop every now and then. I dare ya.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, just frustration - just for the moment. If Bush had stuck to getting bin Ladin, he would have been caught or killed a long time ago.

If he were killed, bin Laden would serve as a martyr and an inspiration to the rest to keep on persuing death as a way to satisfy their intense hatreds.

ican, You are slow; all suicide bombers are martyrs.

Osama bin Laden is/was a recruiter of, and a very effective inspiration to potential suicidal mass murder candidates. If he were to be either executed or incarcerated by the USA, bin Laden would be an even greater inspiration and therefore an even more effective recruiter of suicidal mass murderers.

F*cking unbelievable that you would write such a thing.

There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner. All you are trying to do is explain away the failure of your leader to catch him. Pathetic.

Cycloptichorn

You are too easily upset by that with which you disagree!

There is no evidence that, "There's no evidence that he would be more effective as a martyr then as an active recruiter and planner."

You actually think, I'm trying to "Explain away my leader's failure to catch him!" I've said here a multitude of times that my leader is incompetent. Having stated that a multitude of times, what need is there for me to additionally explain any of my leader's failures.

I thought it obvious that I was trying to explain why I thought it would be a waste of American life and treasure to concentrate on executing or incarcerating bin Laden. I argued for why I thought that loss of our life and treasure would buy more harm than good.

So come on now! Get serious! Why do you think I'm wrong?

Okay - say what you want about OBL, he's displayed excellent planning and strategy when it comes to provoking the US to the ends he desires.

An objective view of the situation would show: 6 years after 9/11, AQ is alive and strong; the US is occupying lands in the middle of the Muslim world, exactly as he told them we would; we have spent massive amounts of money and significant amounts of lives, and not had much success in shutting down the global AQ organization whatsoever.

There's every reason to believe that OBL is behind their strategies - strategies which are working. To get rid of their leader, preferrably to capture him, try him, and execute him when he is found guilty (seeing as he's admitted to being behind 9/11, there's not much chance he wouldn't) would be a victory for the US. Would some look upon him as a martyr, then? Probably. But no more then are actively recruited and given accurate and working plans by him today.

It seems odd to me, that one would argue that leaving the opponent's extremely successful and inspiration leader, alive, is preferable to capturing or killing him. Not to mention, that we would be disrupting the central core of planners for our enemies at the same time; you don't think that's important, either?

Tell you what; let's play chess, and you spend all your time focusing on my pawns, maybe capture a bishop every now and then. I dare ya.

Cycloptichorn

OK! That was a solid argument.

I'm limited on this to only my intuition. I believe Zawahiri is probably the actual current leader of al-Qaeda. I believe bin Laden, if still alive, is merely a symbolic leader. As a result Osama is not enough of a danger to us to warrant the risk of our life and treasure invading Pakistan and dealing with the subsequent consequences of that, even while trying at this time to solve the Iraq and Afghanistan problems.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know