Originally posted by petrosianpupilyes, but can you imagine Stalin under a desk with a cigar having fun with a teeny-bopper while his lackeys waited for a meeting to start?
Stalin understood Regime change.
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.
Clinton is kind of stupid, but he knows how to have fun.
lol
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI think that is a good way of looking at it...
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.
What do you think of the US baiting the terrorists to rally in one area, Iraq, and causing other terrorists around the world to reveal themselves in protest of the baiting methods?... putting aside for now whether you think the war is just. As another benefit, it also brings out people who have terrorist tendencies... so they can be targeted as well.
Originally posted by lepomisi don't think its a good idea. The Israeli's had similar theories and they have not worked to well. I don't know of any example that has worked.
I think that is a good way of looking at it...
What do you think of the US baiting the terrorists to rally in one area, Iraq, and causing other terrorists around the world to reveal themselves in protest of the baiting methods?... putting aside for now whether you think the war is just. As another benefit, it also brings out people who have terrorist tendencies... so they can be targeted as well.
The trouble is terrorism and freedom go together, Stalin and Saddam never had too much problems with terrorism. We cannot use all the methods these evil dictators did, but we can learn something from them.
Killing terrorists without just creating a job vacancy requires an awesome intelligence service that is well informed, well resourced and well regulated. Low profile and efficient. Thats not the Texan way. Many soviet leaders came through the KGB route, including Putin. They understand the methods to defeat terrorism much better than Bush. The US intel over Bin Laden has improved massively over recent years, but it's reading of Iraq has been very poor.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilYou would suggest that covert operations such as infiltration of a terrorist group would be a method of reducing their numbers? Taking them out a little at a time or, are you talking about trying to work with them to come to an understanding about our differences?
i don't think its a good idea. The Israeli's had similar theories and they have not worked to well. I don't know of any example that has worked.
The trouble is terrorism and freedom go together, Stalin and Saddam never had too much problems with terrorism. We cannot use all the methods these evil dictators did, but we can learn something from them. ...[text shortened]... Laden has improved massively over recent years, but it's reading of Iraq has been very poor.
Do you think that part of the problem before 911 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, was that the free world did not try very hard to find and wipe out terrorists?
Originally posted by lepomisAbsolutely.
You would suggest that covert operations such as infiltration of a terrorist group would be a method of reducing their numbers? Taking them out a little at a time or, are you talking about trying to work with them to come to an understanding about our differences?
Do you think that part of the problem before 911 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, was that the free world did not try very hard to find and wipe out terrorists?
All of those things.
Although i don't agree with coming to an understanding with the terrorists, more with their moderate supporters. One of the problems with many areas of previous terrorism is that the terrorists are the one who are givern power and the moderate voices ignored. Look at Northern Ireland, two racist bigots from opposite sides running the country.
I read Bin Laden's speeches not so as I want to appease him, but to understand who his target audience is and what are the issues that he sees as topics for enlisting support.
Infiltration is hugely successful and much underused. The trouble is as you rightly said it is not quick and we had a very slow start. Get it right and you destroy the terrorists lines of communication and trust.
I hate Bush and think he is an idiot, but the US have improved greatly in this one respect.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI suppose, if it is being done correctly, we have no idea if any governments are doing it this way.
Absolutely.
All of those things.
Although i don't agree with coming to an understanding with the terrorists, more with their moderate supporters. One of the problems with many areas of previous terrorism is that the terrorists are the one who are givern power and the moderate voices ignored. Look at Northern Ireland, two racist bigots from oppo ...[text shortened]...
I hate Bush and think he is an idiot, but the US have improved greatly in this one respect.
Here in the states a plot was interrupted when a photostore clerk saw a terrorist like video and turned it in to the proper authorities. I was a little upset that the store clerk was even mentioned... it seems that anytime we catch a suspected terrorist... the government/news is quick to tell exactly how it was done. Unless of course, the method of how is not what really happened... which would make me happier.
Originally posted by lepomisThat may have been the approach from the beginning,
What do you think of the US baiting the terrorists to rally in one area, Iraq, and causing other terrorists around the world to reveal themselves in protest of the baiting methods?... putting aside for now whether you think the war is just. As another benefit, it also brings out people who have terrorist tendencies... so they can be targeted as well.
Plant a base right in the middle of those donkeys as a straight-up challenge.
It's fight 'em in there or fight 'em here .. kind of a no-brainer IMO.
It's not like we can say "NO, we don't want to fight" and they'll stop killing innocents.
So if fight we must, then far better to tear up there house than ours. Better to limit American civilian losses as much as possible.
Iraq is just a central base in the bigger war .. the war on terror. It can't be fought defensively; we can't just sit back and wait IMO. That's a losing gameplan .. playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.
I don't even consider the idea that they may quit. They might take a break to regroup, but quit? I don't think so. Never.
Don't worry Euros, we'll handle the heavy lifting. You can kick-back and relax, maybe import a few more nutters. We'll be over to clean up later.
Originally posted by jammerThat's a decent strategy Jam. It gives us the kinetic compenent need to take out those that are inclined to accept such a challenge and it gives us a base in the region to operate from. Having reliable logistics in the region is certianly helping CIA ops in the region.
That may have been the approach from the beginning,
Plant a base right in the middle of those donkeys as a straight-up challenge.
It's fight 'em in there or fight 'em here .. kind of a no-brainer IMO.
It's not like we can say "NO, we don't want to fight" and they'll stop killing innocents.
So if fight we must, then far better to tear up there house ...[text shortened]... ack and relax, maybe import a few more nutters. We'll be over to clean up later.
Originally posted by jammerThe idea makes sense especially when you look at a map of the area. I have only one problem with it and that is the issue of the people who have to live in Iraq... not really ideal.
That may have been the approach from the beginning,
Plant a base right in the middle of those donkeys as a straight-up challenge.
It's fight 'em in there or fight 'em here .. kind of a no-brainer IMO.
It's not like we can say "NO, we don't want to fight" and they'll stop killing innocents.
So if fight we must, then far better to tear up there house ...[text shortened]... ack and relax, maybe import a few more nutters. We'll be over to clean up later.
Originally posted by MerkWhich would be great... and that is why I brought up in a different thread that it was interesting that the parliament wanted to take a 2 month vacation... its like we are helping someone who doesn't want help.
That's all the more reason for the emphasis on strengthening the Iraqi government.
Good grief.
I can see the lot of you sitting around the table, Dr. Evil to your left and Dr. Strangelove on your right...
"Yes...we got rid of the indian problem. And the negro problem. And communist problem. Hell...now we're going to get rid of the terrorist problem."
The worrying thing, though, is that I see your leaders really sitting around that bloody table!
brrrrrr
1 edit
Originally posted by lepomisThe people of Iraq are in the middle and will continue to be slaughtered until they stand up and fight for themselves.
The idea makes sense especially when you look at a map of the area. I have only one problem with it and that is the issue of the people who have to live in Iraq... not really ideal.
That's the problem .. it's not a Country, it's just lines drawn on a map by someone other than the Iraquis themselves. THEY never fought and built Iraq .. they were assigned to it. The recent "vote" is the closest they've ever come to self-determination. If they (the people of Iraq) want a Country to call there own they'll have to pay for in blood just like every other independent nation.
It should be easy for them, all they need do is point out to us who the issurgents are ... then clean up the mess when we get done.
Originally posted by shavixmir? what are you talking about
Good grief.
I can see the lot of you sitting around the table, Dr. Evil to your left and Dr. Strangelove on your right...
"Yes...we got rid of the indian problem. And the negro problem. And communist problem. Hell...now we're going to get rid of the terrorist problem."
The worrying thing, though, is that I see your leaders really sitting around that bloody table!
brrrrrr
Just wanted to post a few quotes supporting my position that terrorist prefer donks.
"One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East."
"Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections."
Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East "resistance movements" and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.
"...I think some changes are happening for the Bush administration's foreign policy because of the hand of Nancy Pelosi. I think the Democratic Party can do things the best. ... Pelosi is going down a good road by this policy of dialogue," he said."
"Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria "is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S." "The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world."
"Pelosi's visit to Syria was very brave. She is a brave woman," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity" ""I think it's very nice and I think it's much better when you sit face to face and talk to (Syrian President Bashar) Assad. It's a very good idea. I think she is brave and hope all the people will support her. All the American people must make peace with Syria and Iran and with Hamas. Why not?" Jaara said."
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55038