What would people say if this happened?

[The Enigma]

We want you guys out of harms way.  We support you.  Not Bush.  It is possible to support the troops but think the guy running the war is wrong.

I agree. 

[The Enigma]

Unfortunately I think that point is absolutely correct. Our actions are helping to fuel hatred.

How long before Iraq could be a viable country able to sustain it's own democracy without any help from the US? Will it ever happen? I don't think so. This battle to make Iraq a democratic nation is a losing one, without outside support the democracy would never succeed.

Outside of the major cities of Iraq I'm guessing the mind set of the people will never change. I'd also guess that it won't change for many in the major cities as well. Democracy is fighting one hell of a battle.

Jeff, thanks.          (unrelated to above post.)

[24KT]

did we carpet bomb a city?

has some of strongest allies,  England, Canada, Japan etc....  alienated us?

{LOL} Only one point left to draw on huh?
No... England, Canada and Japan haven't alienated you ...at the state level,
...but I gotta tell ya, ...the mood on the street ain't too pretty. 

[24KT]

Where the hell did u get that from......The rags will rush into anyplace that they have a chance to confront the west...ALQ is a product of Bill Clinton and the pussy left not doing their job.

Like I said... AlQ in Iraq is a product of the USA's aggressive war and illegal invasion of Iraq.

AlQ is not a product of Clinton. AlQ is a product of Reagan/Bush1

...and Bush2 is the idiot that pulled troops and resources from Afghanistan before finishing the job. You of all people should know what a disastrous clusterfvck Afghanistan turned out to be.

How does it feel knowing you lost good men over there, only to have lawmakers turn around and call for the Taliban to form part of the Afghan government?

[tu_holmes]

Like I said... AlQ in Iraq is a product of the USA's aggressive war and illegal invasion of Iraq.

AlQ is not a product of Clinton. AlQ is a product of Reagan/Bush1

...and Bush2 is the idiot that pulled troops and resources from Afghanistan before finishing the job. You of all people should know what a disastrous clusterfvck Afghanistan turned out to be.

How does it feel knowing you lost good men over there, only to have lawmakers turn around and call for the Taliban to form part of the Afghan government?

It's tough to argue against the points. ALQ was a direct funding of the US to help get the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan should have been completed and locked down long before Iraq... We had the entire world backing us on Afghanistan... no reason we couldn't have cleaned that up properly.

[OzmO]

{LOL} Only one point left to draw on huh?
No... England, Canada and Japan haven't alienated you ...at the state level,
...but I gotta tell ya, ...the mood on the street ain't too pretty. 

When is the mood on the street ever good?

It's always like that. 

[240 is Back]

How does it feel knowing you lost good men over there, only to have lawmakers turn around and call for the Taliban to form part of the Afghan government?

Dayum.  Incredible point here - DOes he know about the congessmen calling for the taleban to be involved in Afghan govt?

On one hand, from their perspective, it does make sense.  They used to run the place, they tried to hand over bin laden to a world court, but the US invaded anyway.  Now they have kept us at bay for 5.5 years. 

on the other hand, lots of americans died fighting the taleban.  Would hurt for them to see mullah omar with a sr. cabinet position.

[24KT]

When is the mood on the street ever good?

It's always like that. 

True, ...but I've never really seen it this bad. There is always some amount of US hostility up here, ...actually condescension is a much better word, ...but not usually within the Canadian redneck population. When Cdn rednecks start spitting at the mere mention of the US, ...it's not good. They've usually been the most stalwart US supporters.    Still shaking my head that you guys have let things get this bad.

[OzmO]

True, ...but I've never really seen it this bad. There is always some amount of US hostility up here, ...actually condescension is a much better word, ...but not usually within the Canadian redneck population. When Cdn rednecks start spitting at the mere mention of the US, ...it's not good. They've usually been the most stalwart US supporters.    Still shaking my head that you guys have let things get this bad.

One's person's peaceful removal from power will change that.

[24KT]

One's person's peaceful removal from power will change that.

One person's peaceful removal from power has already changed that.

At this point, ...I'm ready to spring for the popcorn to see the Jerry Bruckheimer version.

[Decker]

Some of the camps and/or terrorists were in the cities, no?  Collateral damage is always a concern.  This is the reason why our men and women are dying in Iraq.  We could end this thing by wiping out areas, grid by grid, but because of our ROE and concern for collateral damage, we do the house-to-house thing.  We're not trained to do this. 

We can discuss later.  Even though we are probably pretty far apart politically, you are a good addition to the board.  Have a good weekend.  Last thing you need is an upset wife.  They are no fun.     Have a great weekend.  It's Aloha Friday.   

Thanks for the kind words BeachBum.  I really enjoy discussing these things with you.

Here is why I think that Military Strikes on cities are a bad way to fight terrorists:

1.  The massive destruction creates a hatred in the population that runs counter to "winning the hearts and minds" of the Islamic world.  One cannot win the hearts and minds of a people if we destroy them.

2.  Military strikes do not solve the terrorism problem.  The terrorists regenerate their troops and emerge with a larger chip on their shoulders against the US.  Also, by inflicting civilian casualties we actualize the stereotype that they have for us--a murderous imperial war machine.

3.  The reason we are on the hunt for terrorists is b/c 19 guys with box cutters hijacked some planes and used them as weapons.  They were criminals and we must use like force to apprehend them.  Military strikes are overkill.

4.  These terrorists are not sponsored by any one country.  They are free agents.  The countries that have lent aid to Al Qaeda--Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--are not even on the table for military strikes, sanctions...hell even investigations. 

5.  Let the cops do there jobs.  Infiltrate the organization(s).  Destroy their financial network.  Arrest them and put them away for 20 lifetimes.  Let that be the object of any potential terrorist's thoughts.

Use of the military is a ham handed counter-productive approach. 

[Decker]

Question:   You have a terrorist camp in Iraq or some place.  There's 200 occupants and they are heavily armed.  Do the police handle this or does rapid deployment brigade handle this?

Use of force to apprehend or kill in this situation is not the question.  That is a given.  The question is "Is a military invasion the best way to battle terrorism?" and the answer is no.  Your slam-dunk hypothetical doesn't change that.

I remember that criminal affront called "Waco" where the feds stormed a compound occupied by well armed religious folk.  The cops were able to secure that place without bombing the area to hell.

[Dos Equis]

Thanks for the kind words BeachBum.  I really enjoy discussing these things with you.

Here is why I think that Military Strikes on cities are a bad way to fight terrorists:

1.  The massive destruction creates a hatred in the population that runs counter to "winning the hearts and minds" of the Islamic world.  One cannot win the hearts and minds of a people if we destroy them.

2.  Military strikes do not solve the terrorism problem.  The terrorists regenerate their troops and emerge with a larger chip on their shoulders against the US.  Also, by inflicting civilian casualties we actualize the stereotype that they have for us--a murderous imperial war machine.

3.  The reason we are on the hunt for terrorists is b/c 19 guys with box cutters hijacked some planes and used them as weapons.  They were criminals and we must use like force to apprehend them.  Military strikes are overkill.

4.  These terrorists are not sponsored by any one country.  They are free agents.  The countries that have lent aid to Al Qaeda--Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--are not even on the table for military strikes, sanctions...hell even investigations. 

5.  Let the cops do there jobs.  Infiltrate the organization(s).  Destroy their financial network.  Arrest them and put them away for 20 lifetimes.  Let that be the object of any potential terrorist's thoughts.

Use of the military is a ham handed counter-productive approach. 

Good points.  I think the difference in Afghanistan was you had an entire country being run by a group (the Taliban) that served as host for a terrorist group (OBL and Al Qaeda) that used Afghanistan as a base to train and launch an attack against Americans on American soil.  A swift response was necessary.  We couldn't have taken months or years to do special ops against Al Qaeda after 911.  No telling how many other cells they had in the U.S. and/or how many other attacks were planned. 

So, while I agree with you that attacks on cities to strike terrorist groups are not the best approach, I see Afghanistan as an exception. 

Also, certain segments of Islam hate and probably always will.   

[OzmO]

Use of force to apprehend or kill in this situation is not the question.  That is a given.  The question is "Is a military invasion the best way to battle terrorism?" and the answer is no.  Your slam-dunk hypothetical doesn't change that.

I remember that criminal affront called "Waco" where the feds stormed a compound occupied by well armed religious folk.  The cops were able to secure that place without bombing the area to hell.

I agree with you for the most part.  An invasion isn't the best way. 

The assertion was fighting terrorism by both military means and police means.  I agree that it doesn't require an invasion IF the country's government doesn't support it and is actively trying to stop it.  But what about if the government is flat out supporting it?  What if they camps all over their country and were actively conducting terrorism operation from these camps?  Wold we need the military to do something about that?

[Dos Equis]

I agree with you for the most part.  An invasion isn't the best way. 

The assertion was fighting terrorism by both military means and police means.  I agree that it doesn't require an invasion IF the country's government doesn't support it and is actively trying to stop it.  But what about if the government is flat out supporting it?  What if they camps all over their country and were actively conducting terrorism operation from these camps?  Wold we need the military to do something about that?

Copy cat.   

[240 is Back]

Good points.  I think the difference in Afghanistan was you had an entire country being run by a group (the Taliban) that served as host for a terrorist group (OBL and Al Qaeda) that used Afghanistan as a base to train and launch an attack against Americans on American soil.  A swift response was necessary. 

Mullah Omar (the taleban leader) offered to deliver Bin Laden directly to Washington, DC - dead or alive, as requested - if the Bush administration would give them ANY proof that bin laden was involved in 9/11.
We refused.

Mullah Omar offered to deliver bin laden to the hague for a world trial - no evidence required. 
We refused.

From his point of view, OBL was some prick living in his country, but he was living there.  To clarify:

If China called up the White House and said "we had some terror attack here.  We believe professor beach bum from Oahu was responsible - please turn him over for execution".  We would tell china to either provide evidence, or go screw themselves.  Right?

[OzmO]

Mullah Omar (the taleban leader) offered to deliver Bin Laden directly to Washington, DC - dead or alive, as requested - if the Bush administration would give them ANY proof that bin laden was involved in 9/11.
We refused.

Mullah Omar offered to deliver bin laden to the hague for a world trial - no evidence required. 
We refused.

From his point of view, OBL was some prick living in his country, but he was living there.  To clarify:

If China called up the White House and said "we had some terror attack here.  We believe professor beach bum from Oahu was responsible - please turn him over for execution".  We would tell china to either provide evidence, or go screw themselves.  Right?

What if your Family was killed by a serial murderer and you knew exactly who it was but had no way to prove it and knew there was no way a court would convict him?

Would you follow the law and let the justice system handle it?

[240 is Back]

What if your Family was killed by a serial murderer and you knew exactly who it was but had no way to prove it and knew there was no way a court would convict him?

Would you follow the law and let the justice system handle it?

Here's the thing - we DIDN'T know exactly who it was.

And there were PLENTY of ways to prove it - problem is, the man who fed the money to atta wasn't bin laden - it was a paki intelligence officer who was having breakfast with porter goss (future cia chief) and graham (a 911 commissioner) on the day of the attacks!!!!

digging AT ALL for evidence would show pakistan's fingerprints all over it.  Not Osama's.

To this day, the ONLY proof we have of his involvement is a videotape which many neutral OBL historians believe to be fake.  A 5 year war, a trillion spent, and no evidence?  Odd...

[Decker]

Good points.  I think the difference in Afghanistan was you had an entire country being run by a group (the Taliban) that served as host for a terrorist group (OBL and Al Qaeda) that used Afghanistan as a base to train and launch an attack against Americans on American soil.  A swift response was necessary.  We couldn't have taken months or years to do special ops against Al Qaeda after 911.  No telling how many other cells they had in the U.S. and/or how many other attacks were planned. 

So, while I agree with you that attacks on cities to strike terrorist groups are not the best approach, I see Afghanistan as an exception. 

Also, certain segments of Islam hate and probably always will.   

I understand your point and I would tend to agree with you on the point that the US was just hit and a certain air of confusion reigned in our country.  We weren't sure who hit us and when we found out, we wanted an unequivocal show of force immediately.  And the US did strike several weeks after 9/11.

Was that the correct thing to do or the smart thing to do?  I don't know the intelligence used to make that determination.  In short I don't know.  The Use of Military Force is a powerful tool and I would hope an informed decision was made as far as long term strategy is concerned.

After the fact it is easy to point out that we should have considered other options.  And since terrorism and the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan, it's easy to say that mistakes were made.  I just hoped we'd have learned something before hastily attacking Iraq.

[Decker]

I agree with you for the most part.  An invasion isn't the best way. 

. . .What if they camps all over their country and were actively conducting terrorism operation from these camps?  Wold we need the military to do something about that?

I was waiting for this point to come up.  Then we do what is an unquestionably a constitutional act:  We have Congress declare war on that country.

That clears up a lot of problems.

Also, if one is a strict constructionist, then the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional use of presidential power b/c it is Congress's power to declare war...not the president's.  Congress hasn't declared war on another country since WWII.

War is an appropriate option between countries.  Terrorism is a tactic.  We can't declare war on terrorism.  We can declare war on a country b/c of its support of terrorism though.

[Dos Equis]

Mullah Omar (the taleban leader) offered to deliver Bin Laden directly to Washington, DC - dead or alive, as requested - if the Bush administration would give them ANY proof that bin laden was involved in 9/11.
We refused.

Mullah Omar offered to deliver bin laden to the hague for a world trial - no evidence required. 
We refused.

From his point of view, OBL was some prick living in his country, but he was living there.  To clarify:

If China called up the White House and said "we had some terror attack here.  We believe professor beach bum from Oahu was responsible - please turn him over for execution".  We would tell china to either provide evidence, or go screw themselves.  Right?

Oh please.  It was obvious to Colin Powell et al. that OBL and Al Qaeda was behind the attack.  The Taliban knew they were hosting terrorists.  They weren't going to give us squat.  Our national security was at stake.  You don't negotiate with terrorists under those circumstances. 

[Dos Equis]

I understand your point and I would tend to agree with you on the point that the US was just hit and a certain air of confusion reigned in our country.  We weren't sure who hit us and when we found out, we wanted an unequivocal show of force immediately.  And the US did strike several weeks after 9/11.

Was that the correct thing to do or the smart thing to do?  I don't know the intelligence used to make that determination.  In short I don't know.  The Use of Military Force is a powerful tool and I would hope an informed decision was made as far as long term strategy is concerned.

After the fact it is easy to point out that we should have considered other options.  And since terrorism and the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan, it's easy to say that mistakes were made.  I just hoped we'd have learned something before hastily attacking Iraq.

I haven't seen the intelligence either, but I believe representations of those who did.  Plus OBL has admitted he was behind the attacks, so it's not as if we need to second guess our intelligence. 

[240 is Back]

Oh please.  It was obvious to Colin Powell et al. that OBL and Al Qaeda was behind the attack.  The Taliban knew they were hosting terrorists.  They weren't going to give us squat.  Our national security was at stake.  You don't negotiate with terrorists under those circumstances. 

You are such an armchair warmonger.

It's like you're spouting back the Cheney lines from 2001/2002 "meet the press".

They did offer to give him up, in a box with evidence, and to the hague without evidence.  We declined negotiations.

I guess we TRIED your way, warmonger.  OBL is still loose, we've lost men and spent billions, and nothing has changed there.  Geez, is it that hard to step back and think "Wow, suppose they had turned him over and we could have avoided this whole losing war".


But, your ego and conditioning will always win out over common sense.  Bravo on attacking afghanistan.  Nice work on catching OBL. 

[240 is Back]

I haven't seen the intelligence either, but I believe representations of those who did.  Plus OBL has admitted he was behind the attacks, so it's not as if we need to second guess our intelligence. 

The one videotape, very much disputed by experts domestically, and worldwide?

You're telling me that is the only evidence we have?  Hell, there is a great deal of evidence pointing at saudi favoritism and paki ISI INVOLVEMENT in 9/11.  And you have one shoddy video?


Jeez, you'd be a lousy prosecutor. 

[Dos Equis]

You are such an armchair warmonger.

It's like you're spouting back the Cheney lines from 2001/2002 "meet the press".

They did offer to give him up, in a box with evidence, and to the hague without evidence.  We declined negotiations.

I guess we TRIED your way, warmonger.  OBL is still loose, we've lost men and spent billions, and nothing has changed there.  Geez, is it that hard to step back and think "Wow, suppose they had turned him over and we could have avoided this whole losing war".


But, your ego and conditioning will always win out over common sense.  Bravo on attacking afghanistan.  Nice work on catching OBL.