Hitler, Bin Laden...

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has been determined through investigations that the Bush administration
was provided with incomplete and wrong intelligence that Bush and Cheney
based their decision for a need to act quickly against Irag. Saddam Hussein
did not help matters by being so secretive and not cooperating completely
with investigators.

So why didn't Bush Sr. not go to Baghdad?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So why didn't Bush Sr. not go to Baghdad?

If you remember, Irag had attacked kuwait in the Persian Gulf War. My oldest
son was in that war too. The goal of stopping the attack and protecting our oil
interest in Saudi Arabia was achieved when we drove them back. There was
no agreement with the other UN countries to overthrow the Iraq government,
which was needed to balance the power in the region with Iran.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article about it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
There were many attempts to kill Hitler right from the Burgerbrau kellar bomb blast to the famous failed attempt carried out by von Stauffenberg.British bombers regularly raided the Chancellory wher he was shelterring himself in an underground cellar,especiall on his birthdays,if I remember correctly. There is no basis to believe that he was allowed to li ...[text shortened]... den was attacked by US bombers in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border mountains where he was hiding.

Yes, there were attempts to kill Hitler and Bin Laden, but they were not successful and it took too long to finally get the job done.

Does anyone remember the movies.. Valkyrie, Inglorious Bastards (2009)? They were about missed chances to assassinate Hitler.

I read a novel years ago about a couple from Germany who lived in Africa. The husband was a former general with one eye, who when asked if he would support an assassination attempt on Hitler, refused saying that the German people had accepted Hitler and they needed to learn from their mistake. I can't remember the name of the novel/author, perhaps it was "She" by H. Rider Haggard.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Pakistan was protecting him by allowing him to hide in their nation.
That is my view.

P.S. I understand that he was killed because he was reaching for a
weapon

Years before the Bin Laden killing, the following joke was doing the rounds on Indian TV comedy shows. Indian comedian Shekar Suman is credited with it. What I mean is that it was common knowledge, in India, that Bin Laden was hiding in Pak. It is quite probable that the US & Pak Intelligence communities knew it too and a lot of people kept silent, as a result the terrorism and killings continued...

"An angry George W Bush announced that the United States will bomb the place where Osama bin Laden is found to be hiding.
Hearing this, the then Indian PM, Vajpayee looks under his bed, pauses, and says: "Thank God! He isn't here!"
Over in Pakistan, General Musharraf looks under his bed, sighs in relief, and says: "Thank God! He is still here
🙂


"The US leaders did not have the benefit of hindsight as you do now."....
Sir, it is possible that the US & PAK leaders knew about it and his location...

Originally posted by rwingett
Funny how we supported Bin Laden as long as he was fighting the Soviets.

Because of the rank hypocrisy of US foreign policy, I do not think we are morally qualified to determine who is worthy of assassination and who is not. Plus the ever present danger exists of a policy of assassination being expanded to include not just notable terrorists and foreign dictat ...[text shortened]... is at least as great of a threat as the potential terrorist plots it is supposedly countering

Yes, I agree the US foreign policy seems quite opportunistic.

And yes, there are dangers of an army turning its attention to domestic matters. In third world countries, it happens... the army stages a coup. Politcal opponents "disappear". The ideal situation, of course, would be global peace and there would be no need for armies. But in today's world they serve as a deterent.

But in terms of the huge loss of human life and misery, if one could go back in time (with the benefit of hindsight or Sonhouse's time-machine), and take out Hitler and Bin Laden, then it would be justified.

The morals of it? Well the lesser of two evils? Keep in mind, ... terrorism is also a war.

Originally posted by shahenshah
The ideal situation, of course, would be global peace and there would be no need for armies. But in today's world they serve as a deterent.

Actually most countries could survive very well with no army, or a much smaller army than they have.
The problems with armies include:
1. The host government is often afraid of its own army. As you pointed out, military coups are not uncommon.
2. Army decision making is extremely poor. This results in army's spending money on things that in no way benefit the country in question. This poor decision making can be a result of:
a) foreign political influence - another powerful country wants you to buy weapons from them.
b) politicians showing off - ie they want the latest and greatest because it makes them feel good, not because it is useful.
c) army leadership showing off.
d) corruption (probably the most common reasons for military purchases).
But because most countries are scared of their own armies, they often cannot deny the military what it wants - nor effectively deal with corruption.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Years before the Bin Laden killing, the following joke was doing the rounds on Indian TV comedy shows. Indian comedian Shekar Suman is credited with it. What I mean is that it was common knowledge, in India, that Bin Laden was hiding in Pak. It is quite probable that the US & Pak Intelligence communities knew it too and a lot of people kept silent, as a r ...[text shortened]... w."....
Sir, it is possible that the US & PAK leaders knew about it and his location...

I am pretty sure Pakistan knew but they would not tell the U.S. And
the U.S. had a pretty good idea he was somewhere in Pakistan. But
they had to be sure of his exact location in order to attack him. It
took time to gather the reliable intelligence, since Pakistan did not
go out of there way to help. They only gave the appearance of
cooperation in order to get U.S. aid in my opinion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually most countries could survive very well with no army, or a much smaller army than they have.
The problems with armies include:
1. The host government is often afraid of its own army. As you pointed out, military coups are not uncommon.
2. Army decision making is extremely poor. This results in army's spending money on things that in no way benefit th ...[text shortened]... rmies, they often cannot deny the military what it wants - nor effectively deal with corruption

Very true...

I wonder if Defence alliances between third-world countries of a similar region would help reduce the military number and spending?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am pretty sure Pakistan knew but they would not tell the U.S. And
the U.S. had a pretty good idea he was somewhere in Pakistan. But
they had to be sure of his exact location in order to attack him. It
took time to gather the reliable intelligence, since Pakistan did not
go out of there way to help. They only gave the appearance of
cooperation in order to get U.S. aid in my opinion

Yes, it was co-operation and use of air-bases in exchange for funds.

But is it not possible that if not the US leadership, at least US intel agencies knew his location?

Originally posted by shahenshah
Very true...

I wonder if Defence alliances between third-world countries of a similar region would help reduce the military number and spending?

Most third world countries are not at threat from foreign powers. Their main security threats are internal.
Alliances do not need to be from 'similar regions'.

The only countries in the world today that are genuinely threatened by someone else are those with long term grudges (the middle east, Pakistan, India etc.) or those with desirable resources (that come under threat from the US and Europe).
But even so, most of them cant really protect themselves from super powers anyway.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Yes, it was co-operation and use of air-bases in exchange for funds.

But is it not possible that if not the US leadership, at least US intel agencies knew his location?

If you will remember, it was during this time that we had learned that our
intelligence had given us conflicting information on Irag and the majority
of it was wrong. So even if our intelligence service knew where he was
our leadership would be reluctant to attack inside Pakistan without their
consent, knowing our intelligence might be in error and innocent people
might be killed without getting Osama Bin Laden.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you will remember, it was during this time that we had learned that our
intelligence had given us conflicting information on Irag and the majority
of it was wrong. So even if our intelligence service knew where he was
our leadership would be reluctant to attack inside Pakistan without their
consent, knowing our intelligence might be in error and innocent people
might be killed without getting Osama Bin Laden

C'mon Sir, US intelligence services ought to, at least, be "Intelligent".

If Indian comedians knew it and the Indian public, surely the US intelligence services knew it.
And if the intelligence services knew it, the US leadership also knew it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Most third world countries are not at threat from foreign powers. Their main security threats are internal.
Alliances do not need to be from 'similar regions'.

The only countries in the world today that are genuinely threatened by someone else are those with long term grudges (the middle east, Pakistan, India etc.) or those with desirable resources (that ...[text shortened]... US and Europe).
But even so, most of them cant really protect themselves from super powers anyway

Agreed. Third world countries can't really stand their ground against a super-power.

I was looking at it from a different angle though...

For example take a group of say 3-5 countries in a particular region of the world. All of them spend on armies, navies and an airforce. What is they combined their resources or let the 1 of the 5 take care of the major spending on defence? This would alleviate the burden on smaller countries, against whom there is no perceivable threat from super powers. Like Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea... But as you say, politics, corruption and preconceived notions make these countries spend on defence, when there is no real threat.

Originally posted by shahenshah
For example take a group of say 3-5 countries in a particular region of the world.

Some places have done that. Most notably, much of Europe.
However, since most countries squabble with their neighbours more than anyone else, regional ideas tend not to work. It makes more sense to align your self with a super power - which is also a common strategy.
However, the downside is that when the super powers have a fight, they come to your country and fight it out 🙂
The US and Russia did that sort of thing all over the world.
When elephants fight, its the grass that suffers 🙁

Originally posted by twhitehead
Some places have done that. Most notably, much of Europe.
However, since most countries squabble with their neighbours more than anyone else, regional ideas tend not to work. It makes more sense to align your self with a super power - which is also a common strategy.
However, the downside is that when the super powers have a fight, they come to your count ...[text shortened]... ssia did that sort of thing all over the world.
When elephants fight, its the grass that suffers 🙁

I think that is an African saying, very true.