|
stella41b -> RE: 9/11...What if it happens again (9/19/2009 1:07:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Irishknight
Libya got real quiet sfter the bombing. Yes, some civilian targets were hit. Several military targets were also hit. That is the very nature of bombs. The fact is that Gaddafi was sent running for his life for picking the wrong fight. He shut his mouth after that. If you don't think that paved the way for negotiations, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Punching a bully in the nose and knocking him on his ass is still sometimes the only way to make him listen.
Which explains also perfectly the mindset of those responsible for 9/11 which had been planned for years. Only they couldn't quite get to the military targets so taking out the World Trade Center was perhaps the best thing to do at getting at America. And it worked. It worked far better I guess than the attack on Pearl Harbour. That's why they did it. In fact when you look at it it's still working today.
Do I agree with what they did? No, not at all. There can be no justification for 9/11, it is as it looks at face value an atrocity, as every single terrorist attack is an atrocity. My favourite response to all this has not been the US or UK response but the Polish response. They have a police division, the Anti-Terrorist Squad, men in black, paramilitary trained, balaclavas, well armed. If you come into contact with them you do whatever they tell you to, when they tell you to, and how they tell you to. If you don't do this you die. It's that simple. It's exactly like the policy with the crack Polish military unit GROM - they eliminate terrorists. No trial, no arrest, if you're identified as a terrorist you die.
The Israelis have something similar, and I support it. This is why I oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's bombing back, it's retaliation in kind, doesn't matter if it's a bomb planted by Al Qaeda or dropped out of a US military bomber it's still terrorism. I am all for the war on terrorism, but not by bombing other countries, but by eliminating terrorists and those who support them. No arrests, no trials, no treatment like a common criminal or a cushy cell in a prison, no understanding, no allowances, no mercy, just elimination.
If they want things like mercy and understanding then they renounce violence and terror and take their place at the negotiating table. Until then the only language a terrorist understands is a bullet in the head.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
Stella if it were just me and you we could negotiate anything…But Nations are not individuals… The leaders must act in ways that keep them in power or benefit their nation. When adversarial countries negotiate their leaders must represent the power or the people of the country. What is right or wrong has nothing to do with it. To concede or compromise would be political suicide unless there is a real threat of immediate military action.
I see what you're saying here Butch and this is precisely what 'evil dictator' Saddam Hussein was doing when he was in power. Only Iraq isn't quite like the United States or Britain for that matter, there is no concept of 'the people' because various members of the population hate other members and they hate them so much they will kill them. That's why democracy didn't work in Iraq and I'm not entirely sure it will work until you resolve issues such as the Kurds as well as a few international issues affecting the Middle East.
Joseph Stalin had the same issues when he took over the Soviet Union. There weren't just 'the people' but Russians, Ukrainians, etc but also ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, Georgians in Russia, etc and people who hated each other for whatever reasons, historical perhaps. This explains the enforced resettlements and repatriations of certain people and if you were to visit the Polish city of Wroclaw in the south-west you will find many of the people there were resettled from Kazachstan and Crimea whilst in other parts Poles were resettled in parts of Siberia and the Ukraine.
This is where we really needed Saddam Hussein at the table and to make the reforms whilst in power through diplomatic means. This isn't quite the political posturing you make out here Butch, nor do I agree entirely that the politicians must always represent the 'will of the people' in such cases, but we are talking about saving innocent lives and reducing potential threats of military action.
This explains why that Libyan was released recently from a Scottish prison. Had this have been attempted by Gordon Brown it might not have had the same effect, and if it had have got out and the media become involved then it would have hammered the final nail in the coffin of our government being reelected. However I see this as a brilliant act of statesmanship by Tony Blair which has not only secured the release of hostages, but also put more of a guarantee of safety on innocent lives and further reinforced our stand against terrorism.
Please don't think for one minute though that I see Saddam Hussein as a saint. He WAS a dictator, a complete and utter bastard, and not too brilliant as a leader or dictator (I'm sorry, but Gaddafi left him standing). But then again I don't see Bush as quite the villain some people make him out to be,. 9/11 put him in a very difficult situation as a President, Americans (as were the rest of the world) were rightly outraged by the attack, and he had to respond to the situation and make decisions having only what he had to go on. Going to Poland as an ally was a very good move and inspired in fact. This is where Saddam Hussein got it wrong, foolishly believing that he could play 'bait and switch' like he'd done with Bush Snr and John Major previously and you know I can't help wondering today that had Bush listened more to Blair and gone against the American people had the war in Iraq taken a different turn and we would be looking at Bush quite differently as we do now.
This is why I cannot agree that using force is always the best option, and just as Philosophy points out 'wisdom' is necessary. I don't blame Bush for the war in Iraq, and to be honest I'm not convinced that Clinton or Obama for that matter would have handled it any better nor indeed responded any better to 9/11. But you've got to look at the 'bait and switch' tactics of Saddam Hussein and his mock trial, sentencing and execution supported by Bush and wonder whether there were political mistakes committed by leaders who were trying as best they could to serve the interests of their people. Yes at times Bush appeared incompetent, he made some stupid mistakes during his eight years but I don't for one minute believe that Bush is evil, or that he ever served in office not having what he felt to be American best interests at heart.
And could it not be said that when he was messing about with weapons inspectors and the UN that Saddam Hussein wasn't representing the 'will of his people'? When he ordered the massacre of 148 people in Tikrit, which established in a court of law is his greatest act of genocide, was not that acting in the best interests of 'the people'?
But there you have it. Saddam Hussein is no more. You have your armed forces in Iraq where the people resent their presence, the reasons for your presence no longer apply, they resent you, some of them hate each other, there's no structure or viable system in place, the reasons you invaded Iraq no longer apply, and they also hate the president in the next country - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who is actually an evil dictator ruling a country where he is hated, he hates you, he hates us, and you now have to somehow withdraw leaving behind peace and unity and democracy in Iraq and somehow leave behind a leader who also would shut Ahmadinejad up and keep him in his place knowing that you executed the one man who could keep him in his place and also maintain relative stability and order in his country.
You could of course use force against Iran as you did with Iraq but then again it's more likely that Iran is developing nuclear power, I doubt that Ahmadinejad would be any more welcoming of UN inspectors and quite frankly if you could find inspectors to go in and inspect installations I doubt you'd ever seen them again alive. Also just like with Iraq there's no guarantee that the Iranians won't end up hating you more than Ahmadinejad or the ayatollahs nor is there any guarantee that - as Iran is the only officially Shiite Islamic state in the world that you would not have every single Islamic country allying with Iran and fighting you in what they would all perceive to be very clearly 'jihad'.
However as it stands the situation is as it is, you have a new President - Obama - and nine months into his first term you're already fighting among yourselves over health care and how he was elected. There's also no guarantee that he's going to handle things any better than Bush.
And you're still advocating the indiscriminate use of force?
Stop and think about it.
|
|
|
|
