OBL is trying to forment an apocalyptic war between Islam and the West.
He's failing miserably.
Quote:
His type don't care about dying (rather he does but his boys don't), so forget about fear helping you one bit.
His boys also care about living. As do the thousands and thousands of terrorists who do nothing every day. Nothing stopping more suicide bombers in Iraq. Except a sense of mortality.
Quote:
What the US has done is make more individuals hate it more. You're dancing his tune.
Been hearing it since 10/11/01. It becomes less and less compelling as time goes on.
Quote:
Are these the people you think will fear retaliation? Terrorist groups? You can't invade al Qaeda.
You can destroy terrorist groups, freeze their funding and topple supportive regimes (or at least get them to change their ways).
Fighting terrorism can't get a treaty and perfect peace, but it sure as hell can produce results (or, in this case, can prevent results).
Quote:
Or do you mean the countries around Iraq? Like Iran, who you actually said you would protest in the streets about if the invasion looked on?
If we go into Iran right now I will protest in the streets, you bet your ass.
Countries "like" Iran? Why do people lump everything into one category like that? Weak.
--
der Kopf:
Quote:
...been listening to Beck, have you?
Great song, great album.
Osama bin Laden:
"The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
I wonder if that ****wad cares to change his statement. He sure is brave hiding and telling other people to die for his cause.
A suicide bomber walked up to a U.S. Marine checkpoint near the Palestine Hotel in central Baghdad and detonated explosives around his waist at 7:40 p.m. Thursday (11:40 a.m. EDT), CNN's Walter Rodgers reported. Four Marines were seriously wounded in the attack.
The hotel is not far from the square where Iraqis and Marines worked together Wednesday to tear down a statue of Saddam.
I've finished my grading, so now I'm free to fill up these boards with mindless drivel! At least for now.
Quote:
I think it did, absolutely.
And I reason that out by seeing the reaction. The reaction to the WTC bombing was relatively limited. We took some guys out, jailed some others. International terrorism wasn't addressed very fully, supportive governments weren't addressed. The Murrah bombing brought about even less action, we kind of grieved for a while, developed a tasty hatred for McVeigh and moved on.
But with 9/11 it changed the way we addressed the very vital and real problem that we had been ignoring for a long time, the middle east/Arab world. What we see in Iraq is directly connected to this new attitude, not because Hussein helped the 9/11 terrorists, but because it changed the way we deal with these problems, maybe we will go back to ignoring it, but for now we are active.
What's most interesting to me about this response is that one could argue that this "change" that you're seeing is little more than the difference in foreign policy that the Bush administration has brought with it. Clinton was, despite the Balkans, Somalia, his isolated bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently a believer in containment. Bush and his admin are most definitely not. In some places (i.e. no containment for Iraq; containment for NK). To which I must add that the reaction to Murrah was probably a little more intense that you remember. The Clinton admin took it in the nuts over its treatment of the militia movement in the US (there was an *awesome* documentary about Waco on TV tonight), and Murrah was largely a retaliation against that policy. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge. It was, of course, no coincidence that all of this occurred during a time when the *extreme* right wing saw the federal government as being led by the anti-Christ.
At any rate, I would argue that the change you're detecting is Bush's reaction, not some world-changing event itself. I'm completely off the top of my head here, but I suspect that if Clinton had been president during 9/11, he might've used the same kind of precision strikes/proportional response that he employed in '93 against Afghanistan. If that had been the case, if we had *not* invaded Afghanistan, would you still think everything had changed? I suppose it's a moot point, since what changes the world to me ain't what changes the world to you.... But I'm curious, and it's a sincere question.
So...was it 9/11 that changed the world, or the Bush administration's policies that did so?
Quote:
And if America is acting out after years of relative inaction the world has definitely changed. We annihilated Iraq's ruling regime, Afghanistan's ruling regime and have essentially fired warning shots across the bow of a few other regimes/institutions we consider dangerous.
Yup. And again, I would argue that that's policy changing, not the world. The policy, I'm suggesting, was in place already; 9/11 let it out of the box. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here.
Quote:
I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.
I don't know. It's not like there was ever any question--anywhere--about whether or not we could "take" Iraq. We can just about conquer any country we choose (barring, perhaps, Russia, and maybe even Texas ). But I just don't see it quite as "rosily" as you do here. I don't see *increasing* the fear of the US as a good thing. We're talking about desperate people here, and it's not like they don't know that there will be some kind of retaliation. In many cases (and this is usually the case in Israel), they're counting on some kind of disproportionate retaliation, since it serves to galvanize the base of supporters and helps sway potential converts to the cause. This is all long-term, of course, and I have no crystal ball, but I do not think that your last sentence there takes into consideration the value of martyrdom to lots and lots of people.
What's most interesting to me about this response is that one could argue that this "change" that you're seeing is little more than the difference in foreign policy that the Bush administration has brought with it.
Well, that is arguable.
Bush said in the presidential debates that he did not like our armed-forces being used to build nations. And now we're doing exactly that.
Quote:
To which I must add that the reaction to Murrah was probably a little more intense that you remember. The Clinton admin took it in the nuts over its treatment of the militia movement in the US (there was an *awesome* documentary about Waco on TV tonight), and Murrah was largely a retaliation against that policy. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Well I meant the administration's reaction to the terrorist act.
Quote:
I'm completely off the top of my head here, but I suspect that if Clinton had been president during 9/11, he might've used the same kind of precision strikes/proportional response that he employed in '93 against Afghanistan. If that had been the case, if we had *not* invaded Afghanistan, would you still think everything had changed? I suppose it's a moot point, since what changes the world to me ain't what changes the world to you.... But I'm curious, and it's a sincere question.
If we had not invaded Afghanistan then no, I would not consider it such a change because it would have been our usual pointless response. Drop a bunch of bombs and then go home.
Quote:
So...was it 9/11 that changed the world, or the Bush administration's policies that did so?
Well I think 9/11 changed Bush's ideas about foreign policy. Sure, there were already hawks embedded in the administration, but there was also Powell. Bush is the man who makes the final decision (idiotic caricatures aside) and he definitely changed.
Like Pearl Harbor changed our isolationist policies.
Quote:
Yup. And again, I would argue that that's policy changing, not the world. The policy, I'm suggesting, was in place already; 9/11 let it out of the box. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here.
Yes, we are. I think our policy has a huge impact on the world so when our policy changes the world changes.
If there's one thing that can't be denied, it's that our new policy has had a big effect on the world.
Quote:
I don't know. It's not like there was ever any question--anywhere--about whether or not we could "take" Iraq. We can just about conquer any country we choose (barring, perhaps, Russia, and maybe even Texas ).
Well, there have been many who question our ability to take these nations, Scott Ritter included. Beside that, there is a huge difference in having the abstract knowledge that it could happen and then seeing Marines roll into the center of Baghdad unimpeded, helping the people tear StatueSaddam down.
I always knew that terrorists could fly planes into buildings, but that didn't prepare me for watching the towers crumble live on television.
Quote:
But I just don't see it quite as "rosily" as you do here. I don't see *increasing* the fear of the US as a good thing.
Not just fear, fear/respect. Not the kind of fear that keeps them trembling, not knowing whether or not we'll kill them, but fear that we *will* act, which was a big question. Is the US a paper tiger like bin Laden says?
If they respect our power they will be nicer, and that's the goal. We don't have to hurt them at all. Rumsfeld saying Syria is being "unhelpful" right now is causing shockwaves. I don't advocate bombing anyone, but they have got to remember that they can't literally fight us and expect no retaliation.
Quote:
In many cases (and this is usually the case in Israel), they're counting on some kind of disproportionate retaliation, since it serves to galvanize the base of supporters and helps sway potential converts to the cause.
Well many years of a "proportionate retaliation" strategy didn't help either.
Israel is the big problem, I think. I don't think their main gripes are with us, per se.
Quote:
This is all long-term, of course, and I have no crystal ball, but I do not think that your last sentence there takes into consideration the value of martyrdom to lots and lots of people.
That applies more to Israel, even suicide bombers in Iraq are screaming about this merely being an extension of Zionism. Of course martyrdom is important to many, but I think peace is important to many more.
Of all the reasons I've heard so far, Israel's security is the one of the most credible, and least mentioned (it's politically incorrect, and even mild criticism of Israel in Washington is verboten). All the middle eastern nations recently "put on notice" are not exactly on the friendliest terms with Israel...namely (Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Iran and even Saudi Arabia.
"Regime change" in favor of US puppet governments in these countries would not only decimate the reach of Islamic fundamentalism (great for Israels security) but also allow for a far greater permanent military presence in the mid east. Then there's the added bonus of the US being in direct control of the region's oil resources.
The "WMD thing", or "connections to al-qaeda" or "liberating the Iraqi people from a despot" are only cited because they appeal to peoples' base emotions. The other reasons for the war, ie the ones promoted by the PNAC (which is heavy on Zionism) wouldn't cut it with the people.
Of all the reasons I've heard so far, Israel's security is ......."Regime change" in favor of US puppet governments in these countries would ......The "WMD thing", or "connections to al-qaeda" or "liberating the Iraqi people from a despot" are only cited because they appeal to peoples' base emotions......
.....unless you can prove that Bush's stated reasons are a lie, you guys are pissing in the wind.
All you've got is conjecture....what good is that?
.... and while you are speculating, Bush/Blair are racking up major goodwill and are in possession of Iraq proper---whining won't do much but show how desperate you guys are to concoct an excuse to piss on the current administration.
......one hypothetical after another, Bush is lying, etc., etc.,....all from a bunch of intellectual giants that can't even tell when the next update for OSX will come out.
Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully...
... my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
I'm jumping into this late. I just skimmed the subsequent posts. (I'll go back and read them fully after I post this.) I don't think you resolved this contradiction. Either your point is we should pick our fights carefully or your point is we should take them all out. Which is it?
Comments
Originally posted by kraig911
Its a win win situation folks, I find it funny that UN european countries want a hand in it now afterwards... follow the leader...
What the hell are you talking about?
OBL is trying to forment an apocalyptic war between Islam and the West.
He's failing miserably.
His type don't care about dying (rather he does but his boys don't), so forget about fear helping you one bit.
His boys also care about living. As do the thousands and thousands of terrorists who do nothing every day. Nothing stopping more suicide bombers in Iraq. Except a sense of mortality.
What the US has done is make more individuals hate it more. You're dancing his tune.
Been hearing it since 10/11/01. It becomes less and less compelling as time goes on.
Are these the people you think will fear retaliation? Terrorist groups? You can't invade al Qaeda.
You can destroy terrorist groups, freeze their funding and topple supportive regimes (or at least get them to change their ways).
Fighting terrorism can't get a treaty and perfect peace, but it sure as hell can produce results (or, in this case, can prevent results).
Or do you mean the countries around Iraq? Like Iran, who you actually said you would protest in the streets about if the invasion looked on?
If we go into Iran right now I will protest in the streets, you bet your ass.
Countries "like" Iran? Why do people lump everything into one category like that? Weak.
--
der Kopf:
...been listening to Beck, have you?
Great song, great album.
Osama bin Laden:
"The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
I wonder if that ****wad cares to change his statement. He sure is brave hiding and telling other people to die for his cause.
Originally posted by groverat
Nothing stopping more suicide bombers in Iraq. Except a sense of mortality.
Uh, dude ...
Originally posted by Harald
Uh, dude ...
What?
Originally posted by groverat
What?
Originally posted by CNN
A suicide bomber walked up to a U.S. Marine checkpoint near the Palestine Hotel in central Baghdad and detonated explosives around his waist at 7:40 p.m. Thursday (11:40 a.m. EDT), CNN's Walter Rodgers reported. Four Marines were seriously wounded in the attack.
The hotel is not far from the square where Iraqis and Marines worked together Wednesday to tear down a statue of Saddam.
I think it did, absolutely.
And I reason that out by seeing the reaction. The reaction to the WTC bombing was relatively limited. We took some guys out, jailed some others. International terrorism wasn't addressed very fully, supportive governments weren't addressed. The Murrah bombing brought about even less action, we kind of grieved for a while, developed a tasty hatred for McVeigh and moved on.
But with 9/11 it changed the way we addressed the very vital and real problem that we had been ignoring for a long time, the middle east/Arab world. What we see in Iraq is directly connected to this new attitude, not because Hussein helped the 9/11 terrorists, but because it changed the way we deal with these problems, maybe we will go back to ignoring it, but for now we are active.
What's most interesting to me about this response is that one could argue that this "change" that you're seeing is little more than the difference in foreign policy that the Bush administration has brought with it. Clinton was, despite the Balkans, Somalia, his isolated bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently a believer in containment. Bush and his admin are most definitely not. In some places (i.e. no containment for Iraq; containment for NK). To which I must add that the reaction to Murrah was probably a little more intense that you remember. The Clinton admin took it in the nuts over its treatment of the militia movement in the US (there was an *awesome* documentary about Waco on TV tonight), and Murrah was largely a retaliation against that policy. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge. It was, of course, no coincidence that all of this occurred during a time when the *extreme* right wing saw the federal government as being led by the anti-Christ.
At any rate, I would argue that the change you're detecting is Bush's reaction, not some world-changing event itself. I'm completely off the top of my head here, but I suspect that if Clinton had been president during 9/11, he might've used the same kind of precision strikes/proportional response that he employed in '93 against Afghanistan. If that had been the case, if we had *not* invaded Afghanistan, would you still think everything had changed? I suppose it's a moot point, since what changes the world to me ain't what changes the world to you.... But I'm curious, and it's a sincere question.
So...was it 9/11 that changed the world, or the Bush administration's policies that did so?
And if America is acting out after years of relative inaction the world has definitely changed. We annihilated Iraq's ruling regime, Afghanistan's ruling regime and have essentially fired warning shots across the bow of a few other regimes/institutions we consider dangerous.
Yup. And again, I would argue that that's policy changing, not the world. The policy, I'm suggesting, was in place already; 9/11 let it out of the box. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here.
I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.
I don't know. It's not like there was ever any question--anywhere--about whether or not we could "take" Iraq. We can just about conquer any country we choose (barring, perhaps, Russia, and maybe even Texas
Cheers
Scott
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...345303,00.html
The Bush Admin used the "scare factor" of WMDs to lead the nation by the nose.
What's most interesting to me about this response is that one could argue that this "change" that you're seeing is little more than the difference in foreign policy that the Bush administration has brought with it.
Well, that is arguable.
Bush said in the presidential debates that he did not like our armed-forces being used to build nations. And now we're doing exactly that.
To which I must add that the reaction to Murrah was probably a little more intense that you remember. The Clinton admin took it in the nuts over its treatment of the militia movement in the US (there was an *awesome* documentary about Waco on TV tonight), and Murrah was largely a retaliation against that policy. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Well I meant the administration's reaction to the terrorist act.
I'm completely off the top of my head here, but I suspect that if Clinton had been president during 9/11, he might've used the same kind of precision strikes/proportional response that he employed in '93 against Afghanistan. If that had been the case, if we had *not* invaded Afghanistan, would you still think everything had changed? I suppose it's a moot point, since what changes the world to me ain't what changes the world to you.... But I'm curious, and it's a sincere question.
If we had not invaded Afghanistan then no, I would not consider it such a change because it would have been our usual pointless response. Drop a bunch of bombs and then go home.
So...was it 9/11 that changed the world, or the Bush administration's policies that did so?
Well I think 9/11 changed Bush's ideas about foreign policy. Sure, there were already hawks embedded in the administration, but there was also Powell. Bush is the man who makes the final decision (idiotic caricatures aside) and he definitely changed.
Like Pearl Harbor changed our isolationist policies.
Yup. And again, I would argue that that's policy changing, not the world. The policy, I'm suggesting, was in place already; 9/11 let it out of the box. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here.
Yes, we are. I think our policy has a huge impact on the world so when our policy changes the world changes.
If there's one thing that can't be denied, it's that our new policy has had a big effect on the world.
I don't know. It's not like there was ever any question--anywhere--about whether or not we could "take" Iraq. We can just about conquer any country we choose (barring, perhaps, Russia, and maybe even Texas
Well, there have been many who question our ability to take these nations, Scott Ritter included. Beside that, there is a huge difference in having the abstract knowledge that it could happen and then seeing Marines roll into the center of Baghdad unimpeded, helping the people tear StatueSaddam down.
I always knew that terrorists could fly planes into buildings, but that didn't prepare me for watching the towers crumble live on television.
But I just don't see it quite as "rosily" as you do here. I don't see *increasing* the fear of the US as a good thing.
Not just fear, fear/respect. Not the kind of fear that keeps them trembling, not knowing whether or not we'll kill them, but fear that we *will* act, which was a big question. Is the US a paper tiger like bin Laden says?
If they respect our power they will be nicer, and that's the goal. We don't have to hurt them at all. Rumsfeld saying Syria is being "unhelpful" right now is causing shockwaves. I don't advocate bombing anyone, but they have got to remember that they can't literally fight us and expect no retaliation.
In many cases (and this is usually the case in Israel), they're counting on some kind of disproportionate retaliation, since it serves to galvanize the base of supporters and helps sway potential converts to the cause.
Well many years of a "proportionate retaliation" strategy didn't help either.
Israel is the big problem, I think. I don't think their main gripes are with us, per se.
This is all long-term, of course, and I have no crystal ball, but I do not think that your last sentence there takes into consideration the value of martyrdom to lots and lots of people.
That applies more to Israel, even suicide bombers in Iraq are screaming about this merely being an extension of Zionism. Of course martyrdom is important to many, but I think peace is important to many more.
Originally posted by bunge
I think this is why we are at war in Iraq....
Of all the reasons I've heard so far, Israel's security is the one of the most credible, and least mentioned (it's politically incorrect, and even mild criticism of Israel in Washington is verboten). All the middle eastern nations recently "put on notice" are not exactly on the friendliest terms with Israel...namely (Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Iran and even Saudi Arabia.
"Regime change" in favor of US puppet governments in these countries would not only decimate the reach of Islamic fundamentalism (great for Israels security) but also allow for a far greater permanent military presence in the mid east. Then there's the added bonus of the US being in direct control of the region's oil resources.
The "WMD thing", or "connections to al-qaeda" or "liberating the Iraqi people from a despot" are only cited because they appeal to peoples' base emotions. The other reasons for the war, ie the ones promoted by the PNAC (which is heavy on Zionism) wouldn't cut it with the people.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Of all the reasons I've heard so far, Israel's security is ......."Regime change" in favor of US puppet governments in these countries would ......The "WMD thing", or "connections to al-qaeda" or "liberating the Iraqi people from a despot" are only cited because they appeal to peoples' base emotions......
.....unless you can prove that Bush's stated reasons are a lie, you guys are pissing in the wind.
All you've got is conjecture....what good is that?
.... and while you are speculating, Bush/Blair are racking up major goodwill and are in possession of Iraq proper---whining won't do much but show how desperate you guys are to concoct an excuse to piss on the current administration.
......one hypothetical after another, Bush is lying, etc., etc.,....all from a bunch of intellectual giants that can't even tell when the next update for OSX will come out.
Geopolitics should be so simple!
Originally posted by ena
..all from a bunch of intellectual giants that can't even tell when the next update for OSX will come out.
Hey I stopped conjecturing and whining awhile ago!
even though I think that things will unfold in strange and not all foreseen directions for many years to come.
Originally posted by midwinter
Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully...
... my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
I'm jumping into this late. I just skimmed the subsequent posts. (I'll go back and read them fully after I post this.) I don't think you resolved this contradiction. Either your point is we should pick our fights carefully or your point is we should take them all out. Which is it?