|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 26, 2009 15:33:22 GMT
There are so many continuing and interesting issues involved with the ongoing war against fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists. Should we pull out of Iraq? Should we continue to use unmanned Predators to attack Taliban and Al Qaida strongholds in Pakistan (despite Pakistan's objections)? Did the Bush administration succeed in putting the Jihadists on the defensive and in preventing additional 9/11 type attacks over the past eight years?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 26, 2009 15:38:18 GMT
This video is so very well done and definitely worth a look. General Patton returns from the dead and comments on Iraq and the Jihadists.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Apr 26, 2009 17:04:23 GMT
He talks even more twaddle now than when he and John Wayne were alive. Iraq had no weapons and no plans to attack the USA. Al Qaeda despised Saddam as a religious liberal. The only way the US could succesfully take Afghanistan would be to persuade Russia to invade from the north. Russia already did that but the US hired and trained Bin Laden as a 'freedom fighter', to help the taliban drive them out. Maggie did her bit, she tried to ban the Russian Olympics. The Bush administration simply made Al Quaeda change tactics and with the overthrow of Saddam virtually gave the government of Iraq to the pro-Iranian exiles.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 26, 2009 19:34:31 GMT
A typical red-necked and thoughtless rant in favour of...what, exactly? In favour of war for the sake of war, perhaps. But as a justification for Americas presence in Iraq, or in Afghanistan it fails to make any sort of sense. We have thrashed the Iraq war to bits on this and other forums, but it is worth repeating here and now that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor was it engaged in terrorism against the west, nor did Sadam have WOMD, nor was Iraq any sort of military threat to the west. OK Sadam was a brutal dictator, but the world is not short of brutal dictators, so why was he singed out for Dubya's war? Who knows?
As for Afghanistan, that country is a backward Islamic state run on tribal and feudal lines, and the conflict seems to be between a crooked one man show backed by the west in Kabul, and a fundamental type of Islam going under the name of "Taliban". And as the Taliban draw much of their support and most of their recruits from the bottomless well that is Pakistan, which is an ally of the west, this "war" is both unwinnable, and unending. We have been there for 8 years or more now, and for what? Last years poppy harvest was an all time record, and even Kabul, the home of Karzai is no longer a safe haven.
Two thoughts. The first is that any traditional military machine cannot defeat a guerilla army, which comes and goes as it pleases, which is not in uniform, which does not take part in prepared battle, but uses IEDs and suicide bomber tactics. And the second is that military action by western forces taken against Muslim states simply inflames the fundamentalists, and provides ammunition for the preachers of hate, and yet more recruits for jihad!
If we pulled out tomorrow we would not be in any more danger than we are today. Most of the present threat in the UK is of the home grown variety and is posed by Muslims already here, and trained in Pakistan; not Afghanistan. We are there because we we are there, as the old song goes. And no politician can bring himself to say that it is all a terrible mistake and a waste of our young mens lives!
Patton can be safely put back in his box.!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 26, 2009 22:03:01 GMT
Pakistan and Afghanistan both look similar to the Shah's Iran. A western-looking corrupt urban class has sped ahead of, and at the expense of, backward rural religious tribes. In fact another nation that has done similar is the USA. In all cases, the rural people feel resentment towards the urban rich and all they represent. If nothing else (and often there is nothing else) they can fall back on moral superiority of keeping the Faith and blaming all their troubles on its abandonment for personal pleasure by the rich. 40 years ago you could see whole impoverished European countries feeling this way in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece.
It is not as different as it looks from the old Marxist resentment. That too came with a strong Puritanical ethic, a belief in hard work for the Faith. It was a secular Faith because where it took, religion was a rich public show strongly associated with the ruling classes. If you want something European like the Taliban you'd need to look back to some of Cromwell's supporters (and their descendents in the Bible Belt pre-1950), in some ways enlightened egalitarians believing in work for self and the common good, in others religious totalitarians. Christianity itself has strong links to fundamentalist and terrorist revolt against a rich formal and morally hollow religious establishment. These people have nothing to lose and what they might have to gain, they do not want. Being Muslim has nothing to do with it: they would act exactly the same in the name of Christ or of Shiva.
What can be said about them is that the Saudis are not nearly as innocent as they appear. Whatever their game is, they are playing one and however they may welcome the West in their front door, a lot is going on round the back. Probably they are in a three-way cultural war for cultural hegemony with Iran and the Gulf States.
There is no evidence that an organisation called 'Al Qaeda' ever existed although some groups now use the name. Originally the CIA had a list of loose cannon terrorists they could not associate with any known organisation or with each other. Some may have been no more than freelance hitmen. That is the original Al Qaeda, a word that can translate Database. Subsequently they have said that Al Qaeda cells are operating independently with no overall control - but there is no definitive evidence that they ever did operate any other way.
Obviously they have objectives and necessities roughly in common, just as there have been times when the IRA, ETA and PLO were all helping each other out since they all had similar needs for supplies and disruption by one helped in the general destabilisation that they all wanted. The Irish 'troubles' have spawned entrenched criminal gangs that they used as their fund and supplies raisers. Drawing any line between their equivalent and 'genuine' religious and political organisations in tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a waste of time: such distinctions don't really mean anything. Opium wholesalers may well be very religious, anybody with a truck might not need a gun to their head to raise a bit of cash smuggling, centuries of Islam have done no more to quell traditions of kidnap and ransom than Christianity ever did for Richard I. We think in terms of war today but it is more like war with the Middle Ages or perhaps returning to the big cultural differences that the 19th century realised existed.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 27, 2009 1:57:10 GMT
Quote: What can be said about them is that the Saudis are not nearly as innocent as they appear. Whatever their game is, they are playing one and however they may welcome the West in their front door, a lot is going on round the back. Probably they are in a three-way cultural war for cultural hegemony with Iran and the Gulf States I think this is very probably correct - don't *know* it but have suspected it for quite awhile. Quote: There is no evidence that an organisation called 'Al Qaeda' ever existed although some groups now use the name. Originally the CIA had a list of loose cannon terrorists they could not associate with any known organisation or with each other. Some may have been no more than freelance hitmen. That is the original Al Qaeda, a word that can translate Database. Subsequently they have said that Al Qaeda cells are operating independently with no overall control - but there is no definitive evidence that they ever did operate any other way.
Obviously they have objectives and necessities roughly in common, just as there have been times when the IRA, ETA and PLO were all helping each other out since they all had similar needs for supplies and disruption by one helped in the general destabilisation that they all wanted. The Irish 'troubles' have spawned entrenched criminal gangs that they used as their fund and supplies raisers. Drawing any line between their equivalent and 'genuine' religious and political organisations in tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a waste of time: such distinctions don't really mean anything. Opium wholesalers may well be very religious, anybody with a truck might not need a gun to their head to raise a bit of cash smuggling, centuries of Islam have done no more to quell traditions of kidnap and ransom than Christianity ever did for Richard I. We think in terms of war today but it is more like war with the Middle Ages or perhaps returning to the big cultural differences that the 19th century realised existed.
Very possible. That's why the designations, "war on terror" and "was on drugs" are nothing more than catch phrases - mostly used for PR.
|
|
|
Post by porkypie on Apr 27, 2009 7:42:48 GMT
Ben Lomand and alanseago hit the nail square on the head. I might add if they want to invade anyone they should start with the Saudi.
porky
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 6, 2009 15:44:11 GMT
Invading Afghanistan was a smart move, it draws the bulk of the jihadists away from the west and into a threatre of our choosing.
Does that sound mean spirited and heartless? Tough. My life is worth more than some Afghans life.
AH
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on May 7, 2009 0:24:48 GMT
The big problem with the current conflict is that the enemy isn't a country but rather a credo. We're at war with all of those people who subscribe to the hateful Islamist credo espoused by organizations such as the Taliban and Al Queda, but not limited to those two. Those enemies are dispersed in various Muslim countries many of which have governments that are friendly to the west such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
At least the Nazi's confined themselves to one country making it a bit more convenient. We could then declare war on Germany and take in most of the Nazis.
This is a much trickier problem. How do you tell Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that we would like to declare war on some of your citizens?
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 7, 2009 21:23:49 GMT
They and the other Axis powers had the decency to wear uniforms as well. There would be no Gitmo Bay if our current enemies played by the rules. Pakistan is just worrying, nukes and a strong Islamist presence. AH
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on May 7, 2009 23:38:26 GMT
I think we could get away from waterboarding if we would require the Guantanamo prisoners to watch MSNBC 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. I think about ten minutes of Keith Olbermann or Rachael Maddow would be my extreme upper limit.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 13, 2009 0:52:18 GMT
Excellent point by Ron Kessler in this article. There is a double standard here newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/oslo-barack-obama/2009/12/11/id/341129Obama Praised, Bush Slammed for Anti-terror Talk Friday, 11 Dec 2009 By: Ronald Kessler “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.” For stating the obvious in Oslo, President Obama is being applauded by liberals and conservatives alike. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama said. Isn’t that the duty he undertook when he was sworn in as president? “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies,” Obama said. “Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.” The irony is that President George W. Bush made these points all the time — to the constant derision of liberals and the media. “In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan superstate in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews,” Bush said on Sept. 5, 2006. “The world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers and set the world aflame in war before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives.” Who can forget the controversy Bush generated by referring to Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as the “axis of evil?” For engaging in war with Iraq and toppling a man who killed 300,000 people, Bush was compared to Hitler. Yet because of Bush, Saddam’s regime no longer inflicts torture on Iraqis by methods such as attaching electric prods to their genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and skulls. Nor does it force Iraqi men to watch gang rapes of their wives and sisters. In all, Bush liberated 50 million people. To be sure, Obama’s decision to support a troop surge in Afghanistan is to be applauded. But by saying when he will start withdrawing troops, Obama is sending Americans into battle under a heavy handicap. The enemy knows that Obama’s claim that “our security is at stake” is more hot air. From deciding to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan to threatening prosecutions of CIA officers who used enhanced interrogation to obtain plans for devastating further attacks, Obama has shown that he is willing to risk more attacks on the U.S. In doing so, he belies the fine words he uttered in Oslo. Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 13, 2009 13:42:42 GMT
He talks even more twaddle now than when he and John Wayne were alive. Iraq had no weapons and no plans to attack the USA. Al Qaeda despised Saddam as a religious liberal. The only way the US could succesfully take Afghanistan would be to persuade Russia to invade from the north. Russia already did that but the US hired and trained Bin Laden as a 'freedom fighter', to help the taliban drive them out. Maggie did her bit, she tried to ban the Russian Olympics. The Bush administration simply made Al Quaeda change tactics and with the overthrow of Saddam virtually gave the government of Iraq to the pro-Iranian exiles. that's pretty much the bottom line. NO intelligent person would try to claim that there were any terrorists in iraq until dumbya let them in. only the nutjobs try to claim that the invasion of iraq had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the war on terror
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 13, 2009 13:54:13 GMT
Invading Afghanistan was a smart move, it draws the bulk of the jihadists away from the west and into a threatre of our choosing. Does that sound mean spirited and heartless? Tough. My life is worth more than some Afghans life. AH possibly not just some afghan's, but certainly worth more than any taliban's, hama, hezbollah,or any other islamist trash
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 13, 2009 13:56:35 GMT
The big problem with the current conflict is that the enemy isn't a country but rather a credo. We're at war with all of those people who subscribe to the hateful Islamist credo espoused by organizations such as the Taliban and Al Queda, but not limited to those two. Those enemies are dispersed in various Muslim countries many of which have governments that are friendly to the west such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. At least the Nazi's confined themselves to one country making it a bit more convenient. We could then declare war on Germany and take in most of the Nazis. This is a much trickier problem. How do you tell Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that we would like to declare war on some of your citizens? why should we tell them shyt? we just kill the garbage wherever we can find it. no one has the balls to try and do anything about it, and none could if they were that stupid
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 13, 2009 15:24:19 GMT
why should we tell them shyt? we just kill the garbage wherever we can find it. no one has the balls to try and do anything about it, and none could if they were that stupid So you think it okay to murder thousands of completely innocent people just for the hell of it? What kind of logic is that? No wonder the American flag is burned in every Country!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 14, 2009 3:01:42 GMT
RV - Liberal logic (really illogic) is beyond the pale. Please stop it with the nonsense. America didn't murder anybody. Our invasion of Iraq was a smart move and a key element of the War on Terror. Jihadists are not innocent people.
For once I agree with Jumbo. We should kill the Jihadists whenever and wherever we can. They're not redeemable human beings. They're dangerous and they're best dead rather than alive. I can't believe that you would side with them.
Let me put it this way RV. Suppose you were the one in charge of the Predator drone bombing and missile raids. It is midnight in Afghanistan. You have just received confirmation that bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are spending the night in a walled compound on the outskirts of Jalalabad Afghanistan. You have the exact coordinates. Your subordinates are asking you to give the OK for an attack that would kill these two terrorist leaders. However, they are also telling you that both bin Laden and al-Zawarhiri have each of their four wives and sixteen children present and sleeping in the same compound. You are virtually assured of getting bin Laden and Zawahiri but you are also assured of killing their combined eight wives and thirty two children including infants. There is no way for you to access this compound tonight except with a Predator drone missile raid.
It's your call. What do you do?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Dec 14, 2009 14:01:07 GMT
RV - Liberal logic (really illogic) is beyond the pale. Please stop it with the nonsense. America didn't murder anybody. America is a Country born in genocide and terrorism and has spent much of it life killing innocent people. In less than a hundred years after it's birth they were killing each other in a bloody civil war. Since the end of the second world war your fellow Countrymen have been roaming the globe looking to get into wars that have resulted in Countless deaths and mutilations. You lead the World in chemical attacks against civilian targets: And killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention your own allies troops. You have destablised the middle East which has led to thousands of more deaths of innocent people. Your attack on Iraq was nothing more than naked aggression on innocent and largely defenseless Country based on nothing more than the halfwit's Bush's need to seek revenge for terrorist attack led from a different Country and different people. You have funded terrorism all over the World, including the attempted murder of the British prime minister and the killing of British troops. You sold Iran weapons and gave the procedes to some of the most ruthless terrorists on the planet. And yet you have never murdered anyone? Yeah, righ!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 14, 2009 15:06:59 GMT
why should we tell them shyt? we just kill the garbage wherever we can find it. no one has the balls to try and do anything about it, and none could if they were that stupid So you think it okay to murder thousands of completely innocent people just for the hell of it? What kind of logic is that? No wonder the American flag is burned in every Country! of course, that's a totally ignorant question on its face. the u.s., and the allies, have yet to murder a single innocent person. first of all, a bit of REALITY laddie. there is no such thing as an innocent supporter, whether it be man, woman, or child, of the taliban, al queda, hamas, or any other scumsuckers of that ilk. you lose with your "completely innocent" lunacy before the gate even opens. nonetheless, ALL responsibility, again without exception, for the death of any non combatant is SOLELY on the scumsuckers. al queda, taliban, hezbollah, and the rest are the ONLY ones responsible for anyone killed by an american bomb. you really need to get a grip, and at least a modicum of a grasp on reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 14, 2009 15:18:38 GMT
RV - Liberal logic (really illogic) is beyond the pale. Please stop it with the nonsense. America didn't murder anybody. America is a Country born in genocide and terrorism and has spent much of it life killing innocent people. In less than a hundred years after it's birth they were killing each other in a bloody civil war. Since the end of the second world war your fellow Countrymen have been roaming the globe looking to get into wars that have resulted in Countless deaths and mutilations. You lead the World in chemical attacks against civilian targets: And killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention your own allies troops. You have destablised the middle East which has led to thousands of more deaths of innocent people. Your attack on Iraq was nothing more than naked aggression on innocent and largely defenseless Country based on nothing more than the halfwit's Bush's need to seek revenge for terrorist attack led from a different Country and different people. You have funded terrorism all over the World, including the attempted murder of the British prime minister and the killing of British troops. You sold Iran weapons and gave the procedes to some of the most ruthless terrorists on the planet. And yet you have never murdered anyone? Yeah, righ! your inability, or refusal, to be rational is astounding. you are perfectly correct about iraq, and iran, but then, you continue with an imbecillic dissertation of NOTHING but total bullshyt. you post a picture of a vietnamese child being burned by napalm because the viet cong and north vietnamese refused to act like humans, and try to blame the u.s. that is moronic beyond belief. REALITY lad, again. if the viet cong and north vietnamese had been minding their own business, that kid, nor anyone else, would have ever seen napalm in vietnam. get a grip, PLEASE. by the way, i opposed the war in vietnam, which is totally irrelevant
|
|