Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 133
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by AsifIqbal
    Sounds like you want to see them dead too.
    Yep. But you dodged the question. What would YOU DO?
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Yep. But you dodged the question. What would YOU DO?
    Perhaps find a place for all those with similar views of wishing each other dead to get together without affecting the rest of us.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Are you familiar with The Troubles? How do you think WWI ended? Have you read about the British COIN effort in Maylaysia?

    OK...that is a good tactic. Guess what...we're doing that. Along with the force on the ground there is an intelligence war that is going on every day.
    I think we are losing the big picture in this strategy. The Afghanistan effort was great, but we should have persisted and gone after the terrorists with all our resources. Instead, we diverted our attention to Iraq, made it a factory to create more terrorists and are mired there, unable to react to 2-bit tyrants like N. Korea or apply any credible pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, OBL is free, and the moderate govt in the Arab world are facing the Shia uprising, backed by Iran.

    As for isolating the terrorists, we look isolated ourselves, with only Britain as our solid ally (until Blair fades into the sunset).

    I bet Bush is just waiting for 2008 when he can retreat to his ranch and get a break from all this leadership.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  4.    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I think we are losing the big picture in this strategy. The Afghanistan effort was great, but we should have persisted and gone after the terrorists with all our resources. Instead, we diverted our attention to Iraq, made it a factory to create more terrorists and are mired there, unable to react to 2-bit tyrants like N. Korea or apply any credible pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, OBL is free, and the moderate govt in the Arab world are facing the Shia uprising, backed by Iran.

    As for isolating the terrorists, we look isolated ourselves, with only Britain as our solid ally (until Blair fades into the sunset).

    I bet Bush is just waiting for 2008 when he can retreat to his ranch and get a break from all this leadership.
    CIA was in charge in Afghanistan, Rummsfeld & the military was in charge in Iraq.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I think we are losing the big picture in this strategy. The Afghanistan effort was great, but we should have persisted and gone after the terrorists with all our resources. Instead, we diverted our attention to Iraq, made it a factory to create more terrorists and are mired there, unable to react to 2-bit tyrants like N. Korea or apply any credible pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, OBL is free, and the moderate govt in the Arab world are facing the Shia uprising, backed by Iran.

    As for isolating the terrorists, we look isolated ourselves, with only Britain as our solid ally (until Blair fades into the sunset).

    I bet Bush is just waiting for 2008 when he can retreat to his ranch and get a break from all this leadership.
    I agree with what you wrote, though I quibble a bit about junior.

    That sentence implies that he's a little bothered by his awareness of his responsibility for so damaging our nation and our planet. It doesn't seem so.

    With the exception of junior, every modern President has been visibly aged by the trials of that office. Physically junior's now healthier than he was before (and I don't think its just the govt's free socialistic healthcare.)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What is your alternative? How do you negotiate with practitioners of an idealogy that want to see you dead?
    You find their true aim.

    I have heard you say before this is not a Policing type job, I disagree with on this and here is why. Us, the US being there, in Iraq, or the middle east in general, in a military fashion is just causing hatred towards us. Pretty much the same way us being in Saudi Arabia, was the cause for 9/11. This is an intelligence matter, i.e. a policing issue. I feel snatch and grabs supported via CIA moles and the like, can be the best tool for, infiltrating rings/cells, plus the added bonus of exploiting the info garnered from the captured individuals. There are more reasons, but I think you can see where I am going with this.
  7. #87  
    Wow, a nuclear tyrant is now a two-bit tyrant.
  8.    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You find their true aim.

    I have heard you say before this is not a Policing type job, I disagree with on this and here is why. Us, the US being there, in Iraq, or the middle east in general, in a military fashion is just causing hatred towards us. Pretty much the same way us being in Saudi Arabia, was the cause for 9/11. This is an intelligence matter, i.e. a policing issue. I feel snatch and grabs supported via CIA moles and the like, can be the best tool for, infiltrating rings/cells, plus the added bonus of exploiting the info garnered from the captured individuals. There are more reasons, but I think you can see where I am going with this.
    Agreed, but if we have the intel, there is no need for a snatch and grab. I would have no problem with a missile attack on an AQ meeting for example. And if you remember when Clinton did it, there was no international outcry. And how much more with all the good will squandered by this administration after 9/11.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    A followup question:

    Can you cite an example whre this approach has worked?
    Actually yes.....Pirates...Terrorists of a different generation. It actually has followed very similar general patterns with the terrorist today. First GB & Spain funded them to go against the other nation. Much like USA / Russian / Saudi etc... have done in the 70's & 80s. Then the Pirates became strong and bold and ventured out on their own going against even those countries that started them out in the first place. AQ is a perfect example of this today. British tried to half heartedly go against the Pirates. When many in the homeland lost the will to fight, they offered any Pirate amnesty if they would agree to never continue in the ways as a Pirate again. This did not work at all. Many jumped at the chance, only to organize again with a clean slate to rain havoc as never seen before. Then the British fully committed to hunting them down and within 20 years all but stamped out the main threats and for the most part secured the seas. This is of course an over simplification of a 100-150 year span. But in the end it did take brute force with determination to stamp it out.

    The big difference is the terrorists of their day, Pirates, were in it for the money, glory, and the looting. When the price of looting became more than it was worth (i.e. being hunted down and killed in a very short order), it was a lot easier decision to not turn to piracy. But in the case of Islamic Extremists, it is not often times about money. It is about something more powerful than greed. It varies, but it may be due religious convictions, about hatred against Israel, the West, or the USA....ect...

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    My idea: Isolate the individuals, infiltrate the organizations, get the locals to turn them in instead of harboring them.
    I agree with this. I have stated over and over again that if the Islamic Extremist do not represent the majority of the Islamic faith, then they need to stand up against it. This means be outspoken against it. Discourage anyone to join them. Refuse to harbor and protect them. And pass on intel about their locations, network, ammo caches, bases of ops, etc....

    If Islamic community would stand up against these groups that they claim do not represent Islam, then terrorism would be on the down hill side in a very short order.

    But how do you isolate the terrorists that are networked among the local civilian population? One option may very well mean the use of force. How do you make the local population feel secure enough to feel safe to pass on intel about a terrorist? You have to have someone there locally to protect them and act immediately, i.e. within minutes, on the tips they give. Again, that may mean some type of armed force to protect and act.

    I am not saying having an force there is the only way, but I do see any other truly effective way to meet these challenges to bring about that optimistic scenario that we both share was true.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ...The big difference is the terrorists of their day, Pirates, were in it for the money, glory, and the looting. When the price of looting became more than it was worth (i.e. being hunted down and killed in a very short order), it was a lot easier decision to not turn to piracy. But in the case of Islamic Extremists, it is not often times about money. It is about something more powerful than greed. It varies, but it may be due religious convictions, about hatred against Israel, the West, or the USA....ect...
    yes hobbes, that is why that analogy fails.

    Terrorists who for good and ill are motivated enough to die for their beliefs, are nothing like those pirates who were motivated by greed.

    Expensively paid, hired mercenaries -- like the ones who notoriously overthrew 3rd world governments in the 60's, or even Blackwater Security in iraq today, are much more comparable.

    Pirates and mercenaries are willing to serve only so long as the big money is considerably more than the risk that they'll not survive long enough to enjoy its fruits.

    Your "terrorists" are motivated by the fruits that they attain by their own death.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #91  
    To elaborate: If a nation-state is harboring and supporing terrorists, we form a coalition and take out the govt, a la Afghanistan. Otherwise, we work with the govt (a la Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and even Syria cooperated with us after 911) to infiltrate and disrupt the terrorist networks. And yes, in most cases, it is more of a police action than a full-fleged war.

    Conventional war is of no use against a few dedicated men/women who are willing to kill themselves and take out innocent civilians in the process.

    This takes diplomacy and world opinion and sympathy, something that we had after 911, but frittered away by the grand neo-con experiment in Iraq.

    Philosophically, the Bush approach is one way of doing things (topple a dictator, free up the people, let democracy prosper and spread). It didn't work. It'll be studied in the war colleges for decades, like Vietnam was/is. At some point, the conservatives will have to admit their failure (like Buckley, Will, Buchanan).

    An interesting debate now is:

    Was the neo-con theory flawed to begin with?
    Or
    Was the implementation (on the cheap by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld group) so bad that the effort failed?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    yes Hobbes, that is why that analogy fails.
    For some yes....but for others no. One of the recruiting ploys the terrorist use are their "victories". If the average member is hunted down and imprisoned or killed before they can participate in a "victory" then recruiting will be a lot more challenging.

    There is no doubt that many hardline or long term or fanatical terrorists actually want to die for their cause, so being hunted down is a blessing of eternal proportions with virgins waiting. But I am not convinced that those who have not joined may sympathize for the cause but are not yet that devoted. That is where the analogy still holds.


    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Your "terrorists" are motivated by the fruits that they attain by their own death.
    My terrorist? I don't recall being their leader of late.

    How do you define them as my terrorists?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/05/2006 at 12:15 PM.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ...My terrorist? I don't recall being their leader of late.

    How do you define them as my terrorists?
    What I meant were those that you are defining (as terrorists) -- not in the actual possessive sense.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/05/2006 at 03:51 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #94  
    someone mentioned patience...I think we have not had enough...it's only been a few years, and our instant gratification society is bemoaning it.

    after WWII, it to years (5-7 to root out a lot of trouemakers).

    This is a 10 year affair, like it or not. How it turns out, who knows. But there are a lot of countries in the Middle East who do not want democracy in Iraq, as they don't want that in their own countries (Syria, Iran...even the Saudis, to a certain extent).

    unfortunately, we are in a world in which Isalmofascist require a solid ***-kicking. And Bush decided to deal with it now rather than wait for a dirty bomb to go off in the US.

    War is an ugly deal, but sometimes necessary. Lots of good lessons from the "Fog of War"
  15. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #95  
    If a nation-state is harboring and supporing terrorists, we form a coalition and take out the govt, a la Afghanistan. Otherwise, we work with the govt (a la Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and even Syria cooperated with us after 911) to infiltrate and disrupt the terrorist networks. And yes, in most cases, it is more of a police action than a full-fleged war.
    What about Hezbollah in Lebanon? No only are they given a country to operate out of freely, they are armed and financed by other arab states.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    unfortunately, we are in a world in which Isalmofascist require a solid ***-kicking. And Bush decided to deal with it now rather than wait for a dirty bomb to go off in the US.
    I hope, for my sake, that Bush has not made matters worse by his poor tactical decisions in Iraq (like the looting that followed the initial war).

    If Bush stops a dirty bomb from happening, it will be as a result of CIA/FBI intelligence operations and not Rummy's military actions.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    What about Hezbollah in Lebanon? No only are they given a country to operate out of freely, they are armed and financed by other arab states.
    Hezbolla/Hamas types will be stopped only after a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue, that is acceptable to all parties in the region. That will come out of diplomacy rather than air bombardment.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #98  
    Palestine is only one part of it...they are plenty of other nuts who could car less about Palestine, but do care about hurting the US.

    As for Bush preventing dirty bombs. I was more referring to policy rather him specifically. The bottom line is, the more you appease,the more you will suffer.

    History has been a stronger teacher of this.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    The bottom line is, the more you appease,the more you will suffer.
    I'm not advocating appeasement. My point is that terrorist groups can be handled better by intelligence, infiltration, and in cooperation with the world community of nations, especially the one's that the groups are operating from.

    Military interventions work best against nation states that one has a beef with (like if they are harboring and assisting the terrorist groups). Even this works better if that rogue nation is isolated by having the world on our side. A textbook example of this was Afghanistan (which is sliding back into Taliban hands as we type). I am a total supporter of that war (but not that much of the aftermath there either).

    If Iraq had been actively supporting Al Qaida, I would be all for the war against Iraq (carried out in the Powell way, not Rumsfeldian way). Unfortunately, the Iraq adventure was a neo-con experiment in nation building that has backfired.

    And please don't bring up the "meeting" in Prague or the "yet to be discovered" WMD buried in the sand .....
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    What I meant were those that you are defining (as terrorists) -- not in the actual possessive sense.
    Okay....just to make sure we are on the same page. Define what you think my definition of a terrorist is and then define yours.



    ..........BTW....welcome back!
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions