Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo let me get this straight then.
[b]Isn't your implication that "by fighting them, we have strengthened them"?
No. By invading Iraq, we strengthened them.
Maybe you'd feel less fatigued if you actually reminded me of what I really said instead of making things up. I understand it strains your weak mind to have to use your imagination, so maybe you should stick with reality so you don't get a brain hernia or something.[/b]
By invading Iraq we strengthened them.
So now by surrendering to them we are doing what? Will they go away at that point?
If you go back a few years in these forums you will find me saying "I think that we will see thousands of the dumb buggers jumping into their trucks and heading for Iraq. What more can you ask than to have them come to meet you on a neutral ground?"
I think I was right on that, and I don't regret killing Saddam. What I don't like is that we are now going to surrender to them because dems are defeatist goof-balls who can't face the fact that there really are bad people in the world, and they will not go away just by retreating and surrendering.
Do you think that fighting terrorists NOW in Iraq is a bad idea?
Forget the past. Is fighting them NOW good or bad? What will happen when we leave?
Originally posted by petrosianpupilTargeted assassinations doesn't work for American. Its against the law for us to assassinate political or religious leaders.
good question.
You have to balance freedom with security and there is no definitive answer. It depends on the level of threat.
Unfortunately in the case of Bin Laden and co. the answer is yes.
Targetted assassinations as well.
However information by torture is notoriously unreliable. Much of the mafia was destroyed when the US started to ...[text shortened]... at the highest levels with safeguards and resources that ensure a phenominal degree of accuracy.
Treating terrorism as solely a criminal matter doesn't work either because it doesn't allow us the required resources.
We could have never taken Afghanistan if we had limited ourselves to law enforcement techniques for example.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkHey, don't confuse him with facts. His mind is well made up.
Targeted assassinations doesn't work for American. Its against the law for us to assassinate political or religious leaders.
Treating terrorism as solely a criminal matter doesn't work either because it doesn't allow us the required resources.
We could have never taken Afghanistan if we had limited ourselves to law enforcement techniques for example.
Besides, this is all part of the "mis-direction" that is so important to his "real" special methods. Those "special secret methods" are yet to be revealed, but boy, will they blow the socks off of those bad old terrorists.
It has somthing to do with Hitler and Stalin and Bush and Roosevelt and Poland and cabbages... but so far I can't make anything of the "secret special methods". I think that it is all encoded in Hitlers best selling book, but that is all he would reveal.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAs Iraq was an enemy of Bin Laden & co, by invading Iraq we were strengthening them yes.
So let me get this straight then.
By invading Iraq we strengthened them.
So now by surrendering to them we are doing what? Will they go away at that point?
If you go back a few years in these forums you will find me saying "I think that we will see thousands of the dumb buggers jumping into their trucks and heading for Iraq. What more can you a ...[text shortened]... idea?
Forget the past. Is fighting them NOW good or bad? What will happen when we leave?
Not just my opinion, the cream of the British Diplomatic corp wrote an open letter to Blair explaining just this point. The started by saying the invasion was "doomed to failure". This was a remarkable letter for such a normally conservative group of professionals.
killing Saddam was not a problem. Why could it not be done by a tactical strike. Even if you miss him, like Gadafi he would soon start to be more reasonable.
I don't advocate leaving as the government is not stable.
You have to fight the terrorists now, but pay MUCH more attention to the feelings of the communities in which they hide.
If we could create a working Arab democracy it would be awesome. But the rest of the Arab states do not want this. We have upset so many that it is very difficult to do this and keep Iraq whole. Democracy is an evolution of society and it is very difficult in the arab culture. If it could work it would be a massive achievement.
We need clearly defined area with local democracies. we need a massive input into the infrastructure of Iraq. Economic incentives aimed at short term high employment well paid jobs. Iraq would even be able to afford to pay back the bills.
Originally posted by MerkIf he was there why didn't Bush order more troops in?
The CIA. But to there credit, at least they tried to this time. And for the most part, they did a pretty good job leading that war.
Was it long after the missed chance there that Bush remarked he didn't spend a lot of time thinking about Bin Laden?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe other problem with the law enforcement thingy is that filing charges against someone who has already blown himself up is a complete waste of money and valuable manhours.
Hey, don't confuse him with facts. His mind is well made up.
Besides, this is all part of the "mis-direction" that is so important to his "real" special methods. Those "special secret methods" are yet to be revealed, but boy, will they blow the socks off of those bad old terrorists.
It has somthing to do with Hitler and Stalin and Bush and Rooseve ...[text shortened]... that it is all encoded in Hitlers best selling book, but that is all he would reveal.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilAs Iraq was an enemy of Bin Laden & co, by invading Iraq we were strengthening them yes.
.
But it is irrelevent! We attacked Iraq to get rid of Saddam. It had nothing to do with "terrorism". Do we not have to deal with that issue alone? You say we could ignore Saddam breaking the surrender agreements and rearming and trying to assasinate the president of the US while he was on a visit to the region. I say we could not ignore that. He attacked the airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. There are no fewer than fifty acts of war against the US that he commited in violation of the agreement of surrender he signed.
Not just my opinion, the cream of the British Diplomatic corp wrote an open letter to Blair explaining just this point. The started by saying the invasion was "doomed to failure". This was a remarkable letter for such a normally conservative group of professionals.
So I will now grant you that the necessary act of going to war with the person who declared war on the US... Saddam.... was good for terrorists. Now tell me how surrendering to them hurts them.
killing Saddam was not a problem. Why could it not be done by a tactical strike. Even if you miss him, like Gadafi he would soon start to be more reasonable.
That option closed when he plotted to kill Bush sr. He was dead meat as per the Clinton "Regime Change" policy.
I don't advocate leaving as the government is not stable.
Good. And please, don't now turn around and tell me that is the "special method".
You have to fight the terrorists now, but pay MUCH more attention to the feelings of the communities in which they hide.
Why? Is the community turning them in and reporting them? If not, then whose SIDE are they on?
If we could create a working Arab democracy it would be awesome. But the rest of the Arab states do not want this. We have upset so many that it is very difficult to do this and keep Iraq whole. Democracy is an evolution of society and it is very difficult in the arab culture. If it could work it would be a massive achievement.
It will never happen now. We have "elected" to announce a time of defeat and surrender. (pun intended)
We need clearly defined area with local democracies. we need a massive input into the infrastructure of Iraq. Economic incentives aimed at short term high employment well paid jobs. Iraq would even be able to afford to pay back the bills
Amen. And I will add that Bush and his crock of fools who have run this into the ground are just plain stupid.
There. You see, maybe we are not as far from each others opinion as we thought? But I am still dying to know your special methods. LOL
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe beginning of Clintons policy of Regime Change ...
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of to free the Iraqi people.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/strike_930626.htm
Commencing at approximately 4:22 p.m. (EST) on 26 June 1993 US naval forces launched a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Service's (IIS) principal command and control complex in Baghdad. This facility is the headquarters for the IIS, which planned the failed attempt to assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in April 1993. This US military action was completed upon impact of the missiles on target at approximately 6 p.m. (EST).
Operating under the U.S. Central Command, the USS PETERSON (DD 969) launched 14 missiles from its position in the Red Sea, while the USS CHANCELLORSVILLE (CG 62) in the Arabian Gulf launched nine missiles. The timing of this operation, with missiles striking at approximately 2:00 a.m. local Iraqi time, was chosen to minimize risks to innocent civilians.
President Clinton ordered this action after an investigation by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, which concluded that the operation that threatened the life of President Bush in Kuwait City in April was directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service in retaliation for the role of President Bush in the Gulf War. The Tomahawk was chosen for this mission because it could strike the target without risking the loss of aircraft or aircrews. Additionally, an aircraft carrier was not present in theater at the time.
Then in 1998 as he further delineated the policy...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
and from that, came the following genesis of "regime change in Iraq"
CLINTON-- Quote
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. " Unquote
Originally posted by Merk"Targeted assassinations doesn't work for American. Its against the law for us to assassinate political or religious leaders."
Targeted assassinations doesn't work for American. Its against the law for us to assassinate political or religious leaders.
Treating terrorism as solely a criminal matter doesn't work either because it doesn't allow us the required resources.
We could have never taken Afghanistan if we had limited ourselves to law enforcement techniques for example.
And of course its impossible to change laws. You didn't agree with the bombing of gadaffi then?
"Treating terrorism as solely a criminal matter doesn't work either because it doesn't allow us the required resources."
Another lame argument, terrorism is a special criminal action which requires specific laws and resources. I never said that you should treat terrorism "solely" as a criminal matter. Don't put preconditions on my statements because your arguments are weak.
"We could have never taken Afghanistan if we had limited ourselves to law enforcement techniques for example"
Silly example, a whole country needs to be dealt with differently.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYet another brilliant half-measure. Striking at that hour made it absolutely certain that no person having anything to do with the assassination attempt would be killed. Maybe he was hoping to get the cleaning crew or something.
The beginning of Clintons policy of Regime Change ...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/strike_930626.htm
Commencing at approximately 4:22 p.m. (EST) on 26 June 1993 US naval forces launched a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Service's (IIS) principal command and control complex in Baghdad. This facility is the hea ...[text shortened]... aircraft or aircrews. Additionally, an aircraft carrier was not present in theater at the time.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkActually, that is exactly what he did. It was initally reported as 11 civilians as being killed, and later revised to "3 or 4 custodians".
Yet another brilliant half-measure. Striking at that hour made it absolutely certain that no person having anything to do with the assassination attempt would be killed. Maybe he was hoping to get the cleaning crew or something.
The US Government had a policy of Regime Change though, and the cost was felt worth it.
I almost feel bad for Bush. He is kind of stupid. He assumed that people somehow would remember the policy that one president always keeps intact important policies of his predecessor. He did. He was crucified. Oh well. Live by the dumb, die by it.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyStalin understood Regime change.
Actually, that is exactly what he did. It was initally reported as 11 civilians as being killed, and later revised to "3 or 4 custodians".
The US Government had a policy of Regime Change though, and the cost was felt worth it.
I almost feel bad for Bush. He is kind of stupid. He assumed that people somehow would remember the policy that one pres ...[text shortened]... t policies of his predecessor. He did. He was crucified. Oh well. Live by the dumb, die by it.
Send tanks in
remove leader
Install new leader
take tanks back.
He would never have left his troops hanging around in Afghanistan. He was quite happy to have puppet leaders sort out their own people.
He listened to his enemies and was often very friendly to them, right up to the moment he had them killed.