An interesting question raised in one of my links above is what does our military do if Saddam is trapped, barricaded and fortified in a palace, compound, or cave?
Try to catch him and bring him out alive, or fire ten TOW missles into him?
0 Replies
angie
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 07:50 am
Olen
you wrote: " They will quit only when they see a peaceful Iraq, which will be running their own country." A peaceful democratic Iraq would be wonderful, but Bush emphatically stated during the campaign that America ought not be in the business of nation building. He has certailly flip-flopped on this issue, and we might ask ourselves why.
you wrote: "They will see ( I hope ), that our only motive to force the Saddam Regime out of business was to give the peple the freedoms that we enjoy."I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps in time the truth will come out.
you wrote: "The ulterior motive of our final success in Iraq will be more safety for America from terrorist acts supported by Saddam type governments."The reactions among terrorists and among the Arab world and the world in general may be more varied and complicated than that. As others have stated, terrorists are driven by hatred and their ranks may very well be fueled by this military operation. Many people in the the Arab world already have a well-nourished resentment for the US, primarily not only because of our perceived one-sided pro-Israel policy, but also because of a stark culture clash. This Iraqi war is already viewed by many (moderate) Arabs as a condescending, patronizing western culture vs. eastern culture thing.And finally, the arrogant manner with which we dismissed countries opposed to pre-emptive war (including many long-standing allies) may come back to haunt us for years to come.
-----------------------------
I love my country and I proudly support the use of our courageous troops to defend it whenever necessary. The notion that people who oppose this war are less patriotic than those who support it is absurd. The real question here is "Was this war necessary? Was there another agenda in play? "
0 Replies
au1929
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 08:32 am
PDiddie
Easy capture him if they can kill if they must but above all not let him escape.
0 Replies
Olen
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 09:16 am
Dead Brothers.
angie: 9/11 changed the way many people think, including nation building. We must put an end to countries that are a threat. To leave them vulnerable to be taken over by dictators is not an option.
The terrorists can resent us as much as they like. They can see by example what will happen to them if they act. We are stronger after 9/11, because of our resolve to protect ourselves and our allies. We have many countries with us, and they will increase in number as we accumulate succecces in spreading freedom and peace. It will be interesting to see what I said, after you analyze my post.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 09:25 am
"We must put an end to countries that are a threat." A very troubling statement.
1. Are they really a threat? (the intelligence is often cloudy on this
one).
2. Put an end to the country? I'm taking that literally when I suspect you meant "oust their problematic leaders."
3. We can't go around the world playing policemen for every regime in every country that we don't like (or the world doesn't seem to like).
4. It appears that Liberia is not a priority to the adminstration -- perhaps because they have no oil?
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 09:26 am
BTW, we are not stronger -- our military is stretched nearly beyond it's capacity prompting this administration to try ways to get people to enlist. That may not be as hard as it looks what with the poor economy and high unemployment. Some may not feel they have a choice.
0 Replies
Dartagnan
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 09:43 am
In yesterday's NY Times, there's a review of book, All the Shah's Men, which covers the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, by the CIA in 1953. The British didn't like him because he dared to try to nationalize Iran's oilfields (which the British controlled) and the US didn't like him because he was perceived to be too close to the communists. So he had to go, the shah was installed, and look where we are now.
Here's a review of the book, which sounds like a cautionary tale for those who advocate our marching in and doing "regime change" in every country whose leadership we disapprove of:
angie asked someone else--
you wrote: " They will quit only when they see a peaceful Iraq, which will be running their own country." A peaceful democratic Iraq would be wonderful, but Bush emphatically stated during the campaign that America ought not be in the business of nation building. He has certainly flip-flopped on this issue, and we might ask ourselves why.
-----------------------
I wasn't asked, but I'd like to answer. Bush stated he didn't want to make it our business to send our troops into other countries for nation-building and peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is seen by many as a never-ending, lose-lose proposition. Like Liberia. When do you involve yourself? When do you leave? What is your mission? Iraq is different. We went to war, and we owe Iraq and Afghanistan. We have to clean up the mess we made. Certainly, some people think we should've never gone to Iraq. They will probably never accept any explanation of the differences in the Iraq, Liberia situations. But, there is a distinct difference.
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 11:42 am
sofia how are we doing in Afghanistan re nation building?
0 Replies
Sofia
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 11:48 am
I hear--middlin' to not so good.
I wish we could get some timely reports on it.
I have heard that despite all the criticisms--schools are up and running--women and girls are no longer being beaten and murdered for showing too much chin--women are not being corralled into pens to be ritually raped by Taliban loyalists-- Life for women has improved drastically. People are hung in the streets anymore. These are pretty serious improvements.
Not sure about much more than that.
I think today, I'll search for some more detailed information.
0 Replies
Sofia
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 11:49 am
I hear--middlin' to not so good.
I wish we could get some timely reports on it.
I have heard that despite all the criticisms--schools are up and running--women and girls are no longer being beaten and murdered for showing too much chin--women are not being corralled into pens to be ritually raped by Taliban loyalists-- Life for women has improved drastically. People aren't hung on the streetcorners anymore. These are pretty serious improvements.
Not sure about much more than that.
I think today, I'll search for some more detailed information.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 11:56 am
sofia
This is a quite new article:
Quote:
THE GUARDIAN
Thursday, Jul 03, 2003,Page 5
The UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, having completed a round of diplomatic talks in Kabul on Monday, said he wanted to confront the reality of life in Afghanistan. He got his wish Tuesday.
He left the relative stability of the capital to fly to Kandahar, the country's second-biggest city and the former heartland of the Taliban, to check reports that the country outside Kabul is in a state of lawlessness.
In Kandahar he came face-to-face with the scale of the problems the US and Britain have to deal with 18 months after the Taliban were overthrown.
The Taliban are still a menacing presence in Kandahar province, travel is hazardous, corruption is endemic, opium production dominates economic life and a warlord, Gulajha Sherzai, not the central government, is the provincial governor.
The night before Straw arrived in Kandahar a grenade exploded in the Abdurhub mosque, injuring 19 people. The provincial government, the police and Straw blame the Taliban. The mosque is the base of Mullah Abdullah Fyaz, an arch-critic of the Taliban.
Straw stopped to visit a US base where six of the most seriously wounded were being treated. He spoke briefly to one: the others were unconscious. He said afterwards: "It is strange again that the victims of the Taliban extremists are always likely to be fellow Muslims."
There are estimated to be between 200 and 400 Taliban still active. Lack of law and order was the main complaint at a meeting between Straw and 100 tribal leaders held in the open air in Sherzai's compound.
In comments echoed by other leaders, one said: "The promises and commitments that Blair made and that are in the Bonn Accord [the framework for Afghanistan's political future agreed in December 2001] have not been met yet.
In comments echoed by other leaders, one said: "The promises and commitments that Blair made and that are in the Bonn Accord [the framework for Afghanistan's political future agreed in December 2001] have not been met yet.
And unlikely to ever be met. It's a case of setting one's sights beyond their capability. The eyes are always bigger than the capacity to deliver with any government.
There are foolish people in California who think they can become governor and cure the state's fiscal ills.
0 Replies
Olen
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 12:19 pm
Dead Brothers.
lightwizard: You didn't bend the other remarks in my post to the breaking point, but I beg to differ with you on your BTW. I know our military is stretched pretty thin, but that doesn't jeopardize our goal to free Iraq. I meant by being stronger than ever, that the nation is together, and is determined not to let terrorists ruin our great country. When this nation is united in an effort save itself from threatening forces, we will adjust to any adverse conditions that exist to win. WW II for example. The people of this country will create an irrestible force that will always win. We will go to any lengths to build up to the challenge. Most people on this site are too young to remember the sacrifices we all made to help the war effort during WW II. This fight is bigger than that war, and it won't be over nearly as quickly. All terrorists must go the way of the Dead Brothers, or otherwise be rendered to a non-threatening mode.
0 Replies
Sofia
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 12:25 pm
Walter-- I appreciate the links. I followed a couple of the articles, and they seem to run parrellel to what I thought.
This, for instance-- While most ordinary Afghans do not want the Taliban back, there is growing nostalgia for the security and order that they brought, after years of Mujaheddin turmoil and civil war.
---------------------
It is a mess. But, even though security and opium production are worse than under the Taliban--there's a reason for that. The Taliban weren't operating under the restrictions of due process, freedom of speech or freedom of anything else, for that matter. Sure, no one produced opiates. They didn't want their head on a plank. We can't rule like the Taliban--nor would we want to. If people want to produce opium--they're not nearly as worried about what we will do to them, as they were what the Taliban would do.
From your links, it is apparent the Taliban, aided by al-Quaida, has reconstituted--and run fron Pakistan into Afghanistan. I think it calls for a revisit by our troops or some concerted military strategy to get rid of them. I also wish we'd get breifings on what is going on there. It bothers me that Afghanistan is out of our daily news.
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 01:06 pm
Re: Dead Brothers.
Olen wrote:
When this nation is united in an effort save itself from threatening forces, we will adjust to any adverse conditions that exist to win. WW II for example.
I'm sure the emperors of Rome made similar speeches!
0 Replies
Dartagnan
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 01:06 pm
Well, it looks, as usual, as though Bush et al have gotten ahead of themselves re what's been achieved in Iraq. I refer to the crowing over Saddam's sons being dead and how that would end the terrorism vs US troops. Only, alas, it hasn't...
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 01:08 pm
WWII is a bad example -- the enemy was entirely identifyable in that case. This is a "war" of covert more that overt actions. The attack that killed the brothers was covert in the participation of the CIA operatives. Dubya had already declared the war over -- what happened in Iraq is a problem all over the planet. As long as the US world wide public relations is in such a shambles, we will be seeing little improvement in the battle against terrorism. It can't all be done with brute force. When diplomacy fails, the US has to take 50% of the blame. Read Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" and get the picture. He's right on target and I mean to get the subsequent book in the next few weeks.
This "war" on terrorism reminds me of the "war" on poverty -- nice as far as idealism goes but the pragmatism of the effort is being handled by bumbling bureaucrats.
0 Replies
Olen
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 04:25 pm
WWII was supposed to be an example of what we can do to build up from an almost helpless very much crippled country. There was the resolve to rise out from potential defeat to be the most powerful country in the world. The wars are very much different, but we can cope with thinly stretched troops in Iraq if need be. This nation is stronger and more dedicated to keep our freedoms than many think. We will control the terrorist threat and deal with in whatever way necessary. The Dead Brothers will have lots of company if need be.
0 Replies
Lightwizard
1
Reply
Thu 24 Jul, 2003 05:42 pm
Yes, frank, and the leaders of Sparta (which our Republic is modeled on, incidentally) I'm sure thought the same way. It's one thing defending democracy, another forcing it onto those who don't understand it and are embroiled in integral religious conflicts. Too bad they don't have some of our incentives, like nearly wiping out an indiginous race to satisfy our own opportunism. Vietnam was certainly stretching something but I don't believe it was our troops. It was credibility.
