RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror?

RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/20/2006 11:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "Iran is a country that supports groups that are willing to lob missiles on our friends, meaning Israel. We can debate this friendship until we are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that they are our friends and that is unlikely to change. " ...took this bit out of that post Caitlyn, because again i think i disagree with one of your basic assumptions. Later on in your post you spoke of Israel seeming to be a bit agressive to their neighbours,. but your only solution to this is to take away their neighbours terrorist groups so that Israel has no excuse. Your reasoning here seems to me to excessively optimistic.....the irony, go figure........i see no indication that Israel would stop being so aggressive. Whenever a terrorist group stands a chance of making the shift to purely political opposition Israel do something provocative and stupid...like arresting the vice-president of an elected government.............surely we should agitate for an approach based purely on justice as opposed to accepting an injustice as simply status quo....... Thanks for the response philosophy. [:D] I'm not sure I completely understand what you are not agreeing with. Iran admits to supporting these groups. Perhaps you were speaking of our friendship with Israel. I happen to agree with you. It does seem as if we lean too far in one direction. Then again, I'm not sure what being in the middle would give us. Your statement that you see no indication that Israel would stop being soo aggressive ... to me, is very curious. It would seem to me that Israel is getting along reasonably well with every neighbor that is no longer an active threat towards them, meaning Egypt and to a lesser extent, Jordan. My post #55 suffers from having to be in some logical order, and as such looks more like a "remove one threat and the other will vanish" than was intended. I could have just as easily said that we would require Israel to be less aggressive towards it's neighbors, in concert with steps taken to protect them from groups bent on their destruction. Taking the steps outlined in no particular order, my suggestions give both sides the same thing in equal measure ... security from the aggression of the other. Honest opinion ... I believe Israel would find this a satisfactory outcome, as would some Arab states ... but also believe certain Arab states would not find that this meets their goals, which are nothing short of complete destruction of their enemy. Again, thank you for the response. [:D]

popeye1250 -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/20/2006 5:28:35 PM)
Gent, do you REALLY think "N.A.T.O." fills any purpose now that their sole reason for being no longer exists? P.S. how's Europe comming on that "60,000 man rapid reaction force" they were talking about 5 years ago? Is it "ready to deploy on a moment's notice" yet?

NorthernGent -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/20/2006 11:22:05 PM)
Popeye, Europe's thinkers moved well beyond thinking about armies and military strength around 1654. A few too many wars and people killed in these parts to gladly send more to be killed. Of course if you think life is all about your Government spending taxpayers money on killing their own taxpayers and others then be my guest. The US will learn the hard way like we did over here. Regards

popeye1250 -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 2:24:20 AM)
Gent, you didn't answer my question about NATO.

meatcleaver -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 3:03:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Gent, do you REALLY think "N.A.T.O." fills any purpose now that their sole reason for being no longer exists? P.S. how's Europe comming on that "60,000 man rapid reaction force" they were talking about 5 years ago? Is it "ready to deploy on a moment's notice" yet? Nato is just about dead and on a life support machine. Britain is the reason Europe is having a problem with Europe is putting together an independent force. As far as France is concerned NATO is dead and Germany cares little for the alliance but is reluctant to read the last rites. France wants a European force and an independent and integrated armaments industry that doesn't rely on the USA. Europe already has an independent nuke system that is enough for its needs in the French system. For some reason Britain buys American rather than developing its own or buying French. I can't understand this need for Britain to be locked in with the US because our interests are so different. However, if Britain could pull itself away from the US and join forces with France and Germany, Europe would be able to get its act together very quickly. Why does the US want to keep NATO on a life support machine? It wants to place interceptor missiles on European soil that don't give Europe any protection but puts Europe in the firing line. Hungary and the Czech Republic have already refused to host these missiles and now the US is looking towards Britain. However, even Blair is reluctant to take these missiles fearing a back lash from an already angry public because of his allying himself with fucked up Bush foreign policy. Though I wouldn't put it past Blair to try and smuggle these missiles in under the public radar screen.

philosophy -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 4:39:21 AM)
"Perhaps you were speaking of our friendship with Israel. I happen to agree with you. It does seem as if we lean too far in one direction. Then again, I'm not sure what being in the middle would give us." .....this is the absolute crux of my position. By being in the middle as you put it, or applying international law evenhandedly as i prefer to think of it, we are able to take the moral high ground with authority. Mandela in south africa didn't say anything particulary different to what many peace protestors have said in many countries over many years. However South Africa and, to an extent, the rest of the world listened because he was perceived as someone of impeccable ethics. When America and the West treat the middle east so blatantly one sidedly, then it is little wonder that we are accused of hypocrisy. We want to occupy the moral high ground, at least most of us i think. The price for that is to actually act like it. We must stop taking sides.

CrappyDom -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 10:00:40 AM)
Iran is so happy we elected that idiot Bush. We saved them from being a pariah state with a pariah religion and they are not seen as the great hope of Muslims everywhere. They supported the one group that was finally able to defend Muslims against Israel. They see the American military not just bogged down in Iraq but so worn out that we could not fight on the ground in both places. Iran has won and it is only thanks to the complete and utter incompetence of this Administration and the Republican congress that stood mute and watched it happen. If we attack Iran, it will have the same galvanizing effect that Japan caused when they attacked us. Iran will rise up and cause strife from Lebanon to Afghanistan and especially in Iraq. Or do nothing and simply say "you can't win" because we can't. Bush has backed us into a corner from which he is unable to exit. A real leader and statesman could solve much of this crisis quite easily, but Bush is neither and the Republicans are trapped with him. It would be a glorious sight if it wasn't so fucking tragic for America.

meatcleaver -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 10:26:28 AM)
Smart leaders never fight unnecessary wars for the reasons you say. Iran has the US checked and it hasn't had to put one of its own soldiers in the firing line. The only option for Bush is to back peddle and try to undo some of the damage he has done. He really needs to force Israel into a lasting peace deal with its neighbours. Hell, even the idiot Blair told him the Israeli-Palestinian issue was the key to any successful policy in the middle east.

mnottertail -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 10:30:31 AM)
Machiavelli warned against this very thing......I belive it regarded the Florentines....... I know I said it before Crappy and Meat, but so very few people learn from history, Ja? Ron

NorthernGent -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 1:36:20 PM)
True Popeye - not much to say on this one really. What do you think? Regards

UtopianRanger -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 2:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Smart leaders never fight unnecessary wars for the reasons you say. Iran has the US checked and it hasn't had to put one of its own soldiers in the firing line. The only option for Bush is to back peddle and try to undo some of the damage he has done. He really needs to force Israel into a lasting peace deal with its neighbours. Hell, even the idiot Blair told him the Israeli-Palestinian issue was the key to any successful policy in the middle east. You are correct. But it’s my bet that with the weakening of Ohmert we will some kind of false provocation that gives way for an attack on Iran. As I said before…..They may go through Damascus, but all roads eventually lead to Tehran if you’re a Neocon. - R

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 2:19:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Gent, do you REALLY think "N.A.T.O." fills any purpose now that their sole reason for being no longer exists? P.S. how's Europe comming on that "60,000 man rapid reaction force" they were talking about 5 years ago? Is it "ready to deploy on a moment's notice" yet? I am not very knowledgeable about NATO - but your questions made me curious. On their website, they say: quote: The NATO Response Force (NRF) is a highly ready and technologically advanced force made up of land, air, sea and special forces components that the Alliance can deploy quickly wherever needed. It is capable of performing missions worldwide across the whole spectrum of operations. These include evacuations, disaster management, counterterrorism, and acting as ‘an initial entry force’ for larger, follow-on forces. At present, the force numbers about 17,000 troops. It is set to reach full operational capability in October 2006, when it will number some 25,000 troops and be able to start to deploy after five days’ notice and sustain itself for operations lasting 30 days or longer if resupplied. : : With the conclusion of the active phase of Exercise Steadfast Jaguar on 28 June, 2006, the NATO Response Force (NRF) passed its last test before it is due to become fully operational in October. Is that what you are talking about? They also discuss structure and mission their of NATO overall, see: http://www.nato.int/

popeye1250 -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 4:40:32 PM)
Gent, Daddy, I too think it's way past time that we scrapped NATO. I can see by that statement above that "Mission Creep" has snuck in since the demise of the old Soviet Union. All beauracracies seek to "perpetuate" themselves as we all know and that "Statement" about NATO just goes to show that. Once the reason for a thing's being ceases to exist I just think it's the normal thing to do to dismantle it. You don't see anyone building "Dreadnoughts" these days, do you? Of course the 40,000 or so white collar workers who work in offices for Nato in nice cushy jobs at Taxpayer expense will fight tooth and nail and try to tell us how "Vital" NATO is! lol ("HELLO! The Soviet Union is no more!")

CrappyDom -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/21/2006 8:22:31 PM)
popeye, The reason they want their own "reaction force" is because we are driving them to it, just like we are driving everyone else to arm themselves.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/22/2006 6:11:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut Below is an excerpt from a Frontline interview with Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA, and who previously headed a special unit the agency set up to track Osama bin Laden. In this portion, he is taking the big picture view of the whole Al Qaeda problem - not what's happening this week, or even this year, in any particular place... quote: : : I'm not one who thinks that, frankly, law enforcement is something that's going to win this war for us. As I said, it's a nice accompaniment, but it's not ever going to be the main driver. So it's a policy issue really. It's a policy issue for the United States. Bin Laden is fighting against us not because of who we are or what we do or that we have elections or women in the workplace -- none of that stuff that the president and Mr. [John] Kerry say, and Mr. Clinton before them. They give those as the reason. They hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. There's nothing further from the truth than that. Bin Laden has had success because he's focused on a limited number of U.S. foreign policies in the Muslim world, policies that are visible and are experienced by Muslims on a daily basis: our unqualified support for Israel; our ability to keep oil prices at a level that is more or less acceptable to Western consumers. Probably the most damaging of all is our 30-year support for police states across the Islamic world: the Al Sauds and the Egyptians under [Hosni] Mubarak and his predecessors; the Algerians; the Moroccans; the Kuwaitis. They're all police states. ... So America is in a fix. As long as the policies remain the same, we only have two options to fight this war: the military option and the intelligence services. That's it. If our policies stay the same, no one is going to listen to our diplomacy. No one will listen to our propaganda. We are just not heard in the Islamic world. It's not a matter of them not knowing what we're up to. The problem we have is they think they know what we're up, to and that's supporting tyrannies; we're after their oil; we're supporting the Israelis over the Palestinians at all times; we're supporting governments that oppress Muslims elsewhere, such as the Chinese, the Indians and the Russians. It's a matter of policy. For the full Scheuer interview, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/interviews/scheuer.html ...and for the full documentary, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/ I disagree, so many Muslims hate us because they are fed anti-US, anti-Israel propoganda from birth. If you look at the teachings of Wahhabi Islam, there is no tolerance there for anyone who is not a Muslim. Iranians hang female teenagers who have sex before marriage, and the method they use is the one that causes a slow, painful death. Muslims want to live by the law of the Shiria which means they hang homosexuals, again using a method of hanging that causes a very slow excruatingly painful death. The dictators of Muslims countries are what prevent them from going to war with us. If the Muslim populations had there way they would all attack Israel and be nuked, and they would have nothing to do with us. The average street Muslim is much more radical than their leaders.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/22/2006 6:15:20 AM)
Once Iran gets the Atom Bomb it will be all over for the United States. Atom bombs will anonymously detonate in US harbors and we won't be able to do a thing about it.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/22/2006 6:22:35 AM)
I didn't vote for Bush, but after 9/11, I'm glad we had Bush and not some wimp. We will regret the fact we allowed N. Korea to build atom bombs. And we will regret Iran aquiring atom bombs. There is no reasoning with religious fanatics. They are worse than Communists. These religious fanatics think like people did thousands of years ago. They don't care if they blow up the world, all they care about is following the will of Allah. They will follow what they believe is the will of Allah, even if it means their own destruction, and the destruction of all mankind. They will think Allah will perform some miracle and save them. They are not going to think rationally or scientifically.

meatcleaver -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/22/2006 6:34:45 AM)
Many muslims would say the US and Israel hate them, just look what they do to us. The US has a record of executing young blacks for basically being black by methods that are internationally recognized as cruel and unusual. The USA is the only country ever to have used nukes, that is why everyone fears them, they realise the US is crazy enough to use them because they have proved it and that was after Japan had offered to surrender. 9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. Some people would say there is no reasoning with the USA. Look at its unconditional support for Israel which out of wrath terrorised a civilian population. Step outside your comfort zone and take a good objective look at the US. It ain't a pretty sight.

philosophy -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/22/2006 6:35:49 AM)
"Once Iran gets the Atom Bomb it will be all over for the United States. Atom bombs will anonymously detonate in US harbors and we won't be able to do a thing about it." .........anonymous bombs, eh? Still, at least you know who to blame...........

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/22/2006 7:46:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip If the Muslim populations had there way they would all attack Israel and be nuked, and they would have nothing to do with us. The average street Muslim is much more radical than their leaders. you sound pretty radical yourself. Did you understand what Scheuer is saying? On what basis do you discount his analysis, which is coincident with that in the Army War Colleges? How many Muslims do you actually know? How many times have you been to the Middle East?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125