US swaps 5 Gitmo prisoners for US soldiers release, but many questions remain

[theophilus777]

Good luck with that.

This region has had a certain culture for centuries before America even existed. To think we are going to change that culture, is naïve at best.

We have changed it. They weren't terrorists in the 1300's. Or at least they didn't fly around the world to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

We have changed it. They weren't terrorists in the 1300's. Or at least they didn't fly around the world to do so.

You can believe we have changed their culture if you like, knock yourself out.

 

[theophilus777]

And you can believe we haven't changed it at all and we can get knocked out if we do nothing about the change we actually have made.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just so we're clear, Theophilus:

You dismissed as "immoral" my suggestion of staying out of the Israeli/Palestinian mess and letting them sort it out on their own,

but, your counter-proposal:

• Conquer the entire Middle East,
• Force them to accept American-style values whether they want to or not,
• Keep them under strict scrutiny to make sure they never become competitive with us on the economic stage -- which would necessitate sabotaging them if necessary,
• Force them to pay tribute to the United States in order to justify the expense of colonizing them,
• compel them into all of the above under the threat of military annihilation if they refuse to comply,

...is completely moral in your mind?

 

[Sunshine Locket]

And you can believe we haven't changed it at all and we can get knocked out if we do nothing about the change we actually have made.

Beware arguing in the name of reason with anyone who's counter is that America earns the terrorism that falls on its people and shores.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nothing of the sort. Do try to keep up? These are both ideas of what could have been done originally; you know, AF in '01. I haven't considered any application for either idea now.

Well, if you're not going to think, don't expect me to keep doing it for you.

Why do you pretend we didn't achieve swift and large military victory, greatly reducing the enemy's ability to do us harm? A lot of planning (thought) went into it, and it worked.

Iraq was the enemy? Since when?

Perhaps you've heard of this stuff, "empirical evidence?" Yes, we are safer for it, as attested to by the fact we have not been successfully attacked again on domestic soil.

We were never successfully attacked before on domestic soil, either -- what were we doing right then?

Not at all consistent with your fear of continued terrorist acts though, is it? Pretty much guaranteed to stop all that, and like nothing else would.

Right -- because conquered territories NEVER rise up and rebel -- such an act would be COMPLETELY unheard of in human history...

All that time reading Sunny Zoo and you don't know how the world works? Pay them well. Cheaper than our current ops in the WOT.

Hired thugs, then? Loyal to nothing but the paycheck? Renaissance Italy tried that -- with sad results.

I can forgive your utter ignorance of world history, since you clearly don't know the key flaw with hiring mercenary armies for defense: There's always someone out there willing to pay them more.

That's already been done long ago, as documented by Ian Fleming. and you spelled out the actions more plainly, right in this thread. Morality? Who would believe the claim? You can't be that naive?

So, as a Christian, you admit that morality has no place in your thinking?

Ok, so you ARE that naive! Is this the part where we all hold hands and sing kumbaya?

Ok, friend -- how about you tell me why the terrorists attack us; I could use a laugh.

You have stated your opinion, that if we bow to Saudi kings like Obama, but this time complete with white flag, those big bad guys will stop beating us up and leave us alone.

it would help if you had a single clue why they were "beating us up" in the first place. I look forward to hearing you oversimplify it and/or get it completely wrong.

Specifically that would mean getting out of the Middle East entirely and not supporting Israel any longer. Granted, those ARE primary reasons for terrorism in the first place, but it is naive to think those actions would stop their efforts.

Well, you're close to being right here -- let's see how long it lasts.

You are overlooking your own observation, that it is western culture in their region that they object to. We wouldn't take it away with us, because some people there actually like it.

No, but we wouldn't be actively promoting it anymore.

"Globalization," you might call it.

Which, if it happens naturally, will be as inevitable as the tides -- groups like the Taliban and AQ will die on the vine because they won't be able to recruit.

As it currently stands, they can always point to us as "The Great Satan," and as long as we act like an enemy, people will fall for it.

We're the single greatest recruiting tool they have.

And with the Palestinian / Israeli conflict not resolved, we in fact ARE responsible for that mess, right in their midst. To think they would "stop stinging us" anyway is far more extreme on the bat guano scale than anything I've put forward.

Everyone knows we're Israel's attack dog; that we'll come running if anyone so much as glares menacingly in their direction -- so... what if that wasn't the case?

So with no clearly superior solutions emerging, maybe we have to admit that what was actually done wasn't unreasonable, complete with mistakes and all. But Barry's trade for these 5 stinks to high heaven. We don't know all the details of the negotiations, nor do we know what aces might be up the sleeves of those on our side. Nor do we know if these 5 will be seen as friend or foe by our enemies. And we may not know much more for 20 years or whenever they start de-classifying it.

Well, that doesn't stop the armchair Ian Flemmings from criticizing it.

 

[Armoured]

Beware arguing in the name of reason with anyone who's counter is that America earns the terrorism that falls on its people and shores.

Because trying to understand the enemy's motivation is the same as claiming enemy action is "deserved". *eyeroll*

 

[TLK Valentine]

Precisely why I think negotiations along these lines might have worked.
Giving people an option that is better for them tends to work.

So... we only threaten to blow them up, then? And present the humanitarian aid -- strings attached an all -- as the better alternative?

You just have to reveal what's in it for you, too. I've done that. You haven't shown why it must fail. Just like you haven't shown why war can't be won by killing your enemy. You might be right on both counts, but you haven't shown either.

It'll fail because they don't trust us -- that fact isn't sinking in.

And the problem with your video-game strategy is that you're dealing with religious fighters -- every casualty we inflict is a martyr -- and martyrs are great recruiting tools.

Remember what happens when you cut off the hydra's head?

It may well be a dated idea, but throughout history war has been all about killing people.

But killing people has always been a means to an end -- and one that is meant to be avoided if at all possible.

All you want to do is kill them all.

I don't know of an instance where they fought to the last man, legend of the 300 Spartans excepted. Usually surrender is achieved first.

Actually, there were 2 survivors of the 300 Spartans - although one eventually killed himself out of shame.

And it should be noted that Greece eventually won that war in spite of the Spartans being massacred -- so your video game strategy fails yet again.

You're really not adorable when you think you're presenting new info that is actually old. War is not about being wanted.

Must be new to you since you haven't parsed it into your thinking yet. You plan to fight a war with humanitarians?

The only aspect of my stated plan that has US in power there is colonization, which is not what is being discussed. You are the one not getting it. Why not?

Because your only other option is to give "humanitarian aid" to countries that will spit in our face before and after we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to make them more stable, more efficient enemies.

We actually did that, remember? I'm pretty certain that after doing so, sticking around was a mistake in your mind. You may pick one or the other but not both.

We stuck around in Iraq with our military because we had nothing else to stick around with -- are you suggesting that wasn't a mistake?

Its what we've got anyway, the only difference is the iron fist to rule them with. We can't do that from here, but we could from there.

So... conquest -- with an iron fist.

You don't anticipate any resistance, do you?

Think of it as opening up a new job market Someone else mentioned the only solution would be to eradicate the entire Middle East. Pretty much, it just defines eradication in a way that not merely keeps them alive, but improves their standard of living. As I started out by saying, just like the butter and blankets scenario, this one will never happen either. Which means AF has destroyed the US empire as well. Unless you see a way of salvaging our way of life?

Indeed -- knock off the "US empire" nonsense...

It is if you're going to take them completely out of context as you have done.

You really don't see the relevance, and that makes me sad for you.

No mix and match with Sun Tzu, who speaks to Nations; Jesus speaks to the individual heart, not the Gov't. Christianity has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of politics. Silent. And it was never designed to partner with political power, as the dark ages attest. Didn't you say you believe in learning from mistakes?

You surprise me -- you're a Christian who doesn't believe our government should operate on Christian principles.

We should get some more non-Christians in positions of power so that they are not shackled with those principles in the first place.

Better "better than" doesn't enter into it.

That's right -- I forgot you were dropping all pretense of morality.

What corner of the globe hasn't leveled the accusation of Pax Americana? And I rather like Alexander the Great's model better, if you please.

I'm sure you would -- it's a kinder, gentler form of conquest.

I notice you do not make the charge that we can not do it.

I believe your own words were "easy to do, difficult to maintain." How long do you think it will be after we start when the entire rest of the world rises up to make us stop?

I point out we were much more capable of doing it in '03, and by comparison to what was actually done, this idea might have been better for our Nation; bat guano crazy though it is.

Sounds more to me like you're trying to re-fight WWII -- from the Axis side this time.

Have a care -- the original didn't end well for the Axis.

 

[theophilus777]

Just so we're clear, Theophilus:

You dismissed as "immoral" my suggestion of staying out of the Israeli/Palestinian mess and letting them sort it out on their own,

but, your counter-proposal:

• Conquer the entire Middle East,
• Force them to accept American-style values whether they want to or not,
• Keep them under strict scrutiny to make sure they never become competitive with us on the economic stage -- which would necessitate sabotaging them if necessary,
• Force them to pay tribute to the United States in order to justify the expense of colonizing them,
• compel them into all of the above under the threat of military annihilation if they refuse to comply,

...is completely moral in your mind?

Well I'm glad you asked for clarification because no, I never put forward that idea. I said non-military intervention might have proved far better than what we did in '01, and as it happens it is at least in keeping with Tzu's maxim of not blowing everything up. I said while it would of course have been risky going in un-armed on just their word to remain peaceful, the risk would no doubt have been lesser than the actual cost / loss we've experienced. And I said it could let us exit far quicker, and stood a much better chance for a stable Gov't left behind. And it would in no way be tied to any US imprint on their culture. Unless being fed, clothed, and having sanitation and clean drinking water is a strictly US influence? I think they would recognize it as Afghan water, and might not even hate us so much. Would the Talibs get so happy they voluntarily put down their arms? I'm not kidding myself about that, but there would be a lot less terrorism against US under this scenario, I think.

If the Talibs refused this generosity, (but not altruism) the talking softly at the bargaining table would have to spell out the impending doom that we in fact did deliver. Not exactly the Roman empire but more of a sicilian mobster, making an offer you can't refuse. We'll never know if they would have gone for it, or if they had if they would have kept their word.

The colonization idea is of course moving from sublime to ridiculous, while still in the realm of being doable, (at least in '03 instead of what we did) as a different contrast to what we actually did, to test for reasonableness. I don't see colonizing them as forcing them to accept American values; I don't think that enters into it. We might make the USD the currency, but that's not "values."
If they were our colony there is no fear of competition, helping the region to become productive somehow other than poppy plants would be necessary.
Our benefit of colonization would of course include deposits into the US treasury in addition to keeping close watch on a potential enemy. That is implied by the word "colony," is it not?
Enforcing such a rule need not resort to "military annihilation." We don't even need to crucify insurrectionists, as Muslims have done recently. And I never realized Judge Dredd was a comic book, on that point you are indeed very educational. But I do think this (hypothetical) would not be a society with US Constitutional rights; a colony, not a 51st State.

Personally, I would have preferred to see the "march of freedom" that was spreading across the middle east under our previous Prez continue. And no, I don't pretend to know if POTUS really had any impact on the region taking a decidedly different direction. I just know it sux, and a middle eastern oil barrel colony doesn't seem worse than current reality. I doubt Obama's influence has really helped to avert the present distress. And there was no other legitimate candidate at either of his elections.

 

[theophilus777]

Iraq was the enemy? Since when?

Neither Country was the enemy, remember? The Taliban was NOT the legally recognized Gov't of AF regardless what some here like to claim, but this was re: AF not Iraq.

We were never successfully attacked before on domestic soil, either -- what were we doing right then?

We were never attacked before wise guy. And not for a lack of doing the 2 things you say we need to stop to quell their terrorism, either. Which brings up a point: at least no one has come in here blaming 911 as an inside job. OBL did attack WTC before, and we acted on good intel after 911.

Right -- because conquered territories NEVER rise up and rebel -- such an act would be COMPLETELY unheard of in human history...

NIMBY

Hired thugs, then? Loyal to nothing but the paycheck? Renaissance Italy tried that -- with sad results.

Make it a consequence of losing a US election. That means you only run if you're actually willing to serve. Poetic justice

I can forgive your utter ignorance of world history, since you clearly don't know the key flaw with hiring mercenary armies for defense: There's always someone out there willing to pay them more.

Your condescension got old long ago, give it a rest huh? There would be no $ for such a purpose; vassal state, remember?

So, as a Christian, you admit that morality has no place in your thinking?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Ok, friend -- how about you tell me why the terrorists attack us; I could use a laugh.

We stop poking the hornet's nest, they still remember we paid to establish Israel. They're not going to forget just because we stop poking their nest, neither will they forgive. "Skin in the game," I think its called? I already addressed this: I don't see why we didn't rescue holocaust survivors to US, we have plenty of room. At that time, we weren't the ones drawing the lines on the map. And I don't know of another imposition like that we financed other than Israel. Of course later mistakes made things worse, but would those situations even have arisen had we not paid to set up Israel?

You gave a brief summary of our footprints, propping up one terrible leader after another. Now they go nearly to Morocco, contiguously. How do you propose to undo that?

Even if we intentionally evacuate every US person and remove all our embassies, they STILL have western influence in their culture because some of their people LIKE it. We can't undo that, either. You'll notice they don't mind our steel in their oil wells though.

Everyone knows we're Israel's attack dog; that we'll come running if anyone so much as glares menacingly in their direction -- so... what if that wasn't the case?

Hmmm, everyone finds out if Israel really is a nuclear power or not? You calling heads or tails? Will Vegas lay odds, Israel in the 3rd round by TKO? I think the case could well be made that US balance of power acts more to keep Israel on a leash.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Neither Country was the enemy, remember? The Taliban was NOT the legally recognized Gov't of AF regardless what some here like to claim, but this was re: AF not Iraq.

Ah -- well, of course, AF was more or less the forgotten war; not nearly as much media coverage.

Still raises the question of what we were doing in Iraq, of course...

We were never attacked before wise guy. And not for a lack of doing the 2 things you say we need to stop to quell their terrorism, either. Which brings up a point: at least no one has come in here blaming 911 as an inside job. OBL did attack WTC before, and we acted on good intel after 911.

Yes, but since we had 200 years without an attack, it seems presumptuous to assume that the 13 years since we've had without one (well, except for the Boston Marathon bombing, that is... oops!) would be an indication of success...

NIMBY

Of course -- the fact that they're on the other side of the Atlantic ocean will insulate us completely from problems... oh, wait...

Make it a consequence of losing a US election. That means you only run if you're actually willing to serve. Poetic justice

So, instead of professional criminals, you want to send the worst kind of politicians -- the unsuccessful ones?

Your little thought experiment is a fail on so many levels...

Which brings up another question about your proposed colonies -- If they are going to be US "colonies," how much of a say will they get in our political processes? Obviously they're going to pay tribute-- er, I mean "taxes" to cover the expenses, but will they be represented in Congress? Will the inhabitants be considered US citizens? Will they vote? etc., etc...

Your condescension got old long ago, give it a rest huh? There would be no $ for such a purpose; vassal state, remember?

You're assuming that the conquered would be footing the bill themselves -- and what does "vassal state" have to do with it?

Do you plan to keep them in a state of perpetual poverty? How do you plan to do that?

When did you stop beating your wife?

About a half hour after you decided that both American and Christian principles were too inconvenient for politics.

We stop poking the hornet's nest, they still remember we paid to establish Israel. They're not going to forget just because we stop poking their nest, neither will they forgive.

True, but they're more likely to use their limited resources on the more direct target -- Israel and its allies... of which we will no longer be.

Are we ever going to be buddy-buddy with them? Highly unlikely, but washing our hands of the Middle East will inspire them to direct their attention towards their primary target.

"Skin in the game," I think its called?

Which we won't have anymore.

I already addressed this: I don't see why we didn't rescue holocaust survivors to US, we have plenty of room.

And plenty of antisemitism to go with it. You're assuming that just because we weren't gassing Jews, that we liked them. NIMBY, remember?

At that time, we weren't the ones drawing the lines on the map. And I don't know of another imposition like that we financed other than Israel. Of course later mistakes made things worse, but would those situations even have arisen had we not paid to set up Israel?

We can't undo our first mistake, but we can fix the subsequent ones.

You gave a brief summary of our footprints, propping up one terrible leader after another. Now they go nearly to Morocco, contiguously. How do you propose to undo that?

Simple -- I don't. that's the point of "we have no interests in the area."

Let them replace their own terrible leaders with other, equally terrible leaders on their own -- just like we do it in America.

Even if we intentionally evacuate every US person and remove all our embassies, they STILL have western influence in their culture because some of their people LIKE it.

Then their issue will be with their own people, possibly leading to a cultural revolution -- or evolution, if you will -- kind of like what's going on among the people of Iran.

Iran has a relatively young population, and many of them aren't too thrilled with their government's policies -- since the old guard can't live forever, it's inevitable that they'll mellow out... provided we don't do anything stupid to put ourselves in their crosshairs.

We can't undo that, either. You'll notice they don't mind our steel in their oil wells though.

Why should they? They paid for it.

Of course, you'll notice they'll mind it terribly if you try to steal it from them.

Hmmm, everyone finds out if Israel really is a nuclear power or not? You calling heads or tails? Will Vegas lay odds, Israel in the 3rd round by TKO? I think the case could well be made that US balance of power acts more to keep Israel on a leash.

Now that's an interesting idea -- we're not protecting Israel, we're protecting the Middle East from Israel.

So what are the odds that Israel is a rogue state with nuclear weapons? An interesting question indeed...

 

[theophilus777]

Ah -- well, of course, AF was more or less the forgotten war; not nearly as much media coverage.

Still raises the question of what we were doing in Iraq, of course...

I think AF may have also gotten forgotten in terms of military strategy, not just media coverage. Like I said, even if Iraq needed to be invaded, toppled, or whatever, the timing was pretty terrible and I thought it made more sense to stay focused on AF until it was "successful." However that might be defined. Instead I think it was forgotten, and we doubled our mess. Or so it seems.

Yes, but since we had 200 years without an attack, it seems presumptuous to assume that the 13 years since we've had without one (well, except for the Boston Marathon bombing, that is... oops!) would be an indication of success...

Boston doesn't really count, does it? Wasn't that a domestic attacker? But this is a case of statistics don't lie, statisticians do. Your contrast of 200 years vs 13 glosses over a few important details, like technological feasibility, motive ... those 13 years had far more intent and capability than the previous history of the world combined.

Of course -- the fact that they're on the other side of the Atlantic ocean will insulate us completely from problems... oh, wait...

Listen to yourself?! You're seriously trying to say that a terrorist attack on domestic soil is less likely under the current conditions in the middle east vs if we had the whole region under our thumb? Any uprising on their part would be domestic; to them, not us.

So, instead of professional criminals, you want to send the worst kind of politicians -- the unsuccessful ones?

Your little thought experiment is a fail on so many levels...

Another pointless critique; you use ordinary channels to fill a job before resorting to extraordinary ones. And as for your concern about losing their allegiance to a higher bidder? You mean like happens to our Congress?

Which brings up another question about your proposed colonies -- If they are going to be US "colonies," how much of a say will they get in our political processes? Obviously they're going to pay tribute-- er, I mean "taxes" to cover the expenses, but will they be represented in Congress? Will the inhabitants be considered US citizens? Will they vote? etc., etc...

I think it's a little premature to hash out those details, don't you? No gun ownership rights, that much is clear. They're pretty much serfdoms now, right? Couldn't be too hard to improve their standard of living and still collect tribute. No say in US politics obviously, but put up a suggestion box; our appointed Dukes will need kindling sometime. lol They'll be mad we're stealing all their oil anyway. You must admit we get accused of that, and haven't taken a drop. Kind of a "how do you like me now?"

Do you plan to keep them in a state of perpetual poverty? How do you plan to do that?

Hey, not everybody can be King. Tribute collected is dependent on leaving a better standard of living than they have now. Just not be too much.

About a half hour after you decided that both American and Christian principles were too inconvenient for politics.

On what basis can the US have pretense for morals? Propping up (and tearing down) leaders all over the place? And you just want to abandon everything and say "oops?" That's somehow better?

Just think of it as a corporate hostile takeover; perfectly legal.

True, but they're more likely to use their limited resources on the more direct target -- Israel and its allies... of which we will no longer be.

Some very strange wording. Who do you refer to? And last I checked, boko haram had not yet targeted Israel. But speaking of "thought experiment," you know your ideas here will never happen either.

Are we ever going to be buddy-buddy with them? Highly unlikely, but washing our hands of the Middle East will inspire them to direct their attention towards their primary target.

Oh I get your idea now! Muslim killing Muslim is MUCH more moral than imposing a stable Gov't on the whole place and making it productive, improving everyone's life in the process.

Back to reality, somebody ought to help these guys determine sensible boundaries w/o having to hash out every inch of God forsaken land via bloodshed. England drew up the map, and a lot of these clashes are only because incompatible cultures got forced to play nice with one another. A lot of territorial disputes are foregone conclusions. External influence could be diplomacy w/o military intervention. A valid function of the UN? Let them agree on how much turf they can't agree on, and kill each over over those areas, w/o having to fight over everything. Its sad that their re-drawn borders will no doubt be along religious lines, but that's their deal.

And plenty of antisemitism to go with it. You're assuming that just because we weren't gassing Jews, that we liked them. NIMBY, remember?

Point ceded.

We can't undo our first mistake, but we can fix the subsequent ones.

Here, our first mistake is financing the creation of Israel, and the subsequent ones are the Govt's in the region we have propped up and torn down. How do we fix the subsequent ones again? You have us walking away from everything. (You're Robin Williams! You have seen his routine on foreign policy?)

Let them replace their own terrible leaders with other, equally terrible leaders on their own -- just like we do it in America.

lol This is not "fixing our subsequent ones."

Iran has a relatively young population, and many of them aren't too thrilled with their government's policies -- since the old guard can't live forever, it's inevitable that they'll mellow out... provided we don't do anything stupid to put ourselves in their crosshairs.

You mean like by denying them nuclear powered electricity? Good point. Why does the IAEA exist?

Now that's an interesting idea -- we're not protecting Israel, we're protecting the Middle East from Israel.

So what are the odds that Israel is a rogue state with nuclear weapons? An interesting question indeed...

And you think the grief with the nutters over evolution and separation of Church and State is bad?? My man, you are walking headlong into the wacky world of Biblical prophecy ... be afraid, be very afraid. There will be no rational National discourse on abandoning Israel. I think the best we can do there is stoke their natural proclivity to resent US aid, and the control that comes with it. We might even be past the 1/2 way point?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think AF may have also gotten forgotten in terms of military strategy, not just media coverage. Like I said, even if Iraq needed to be invaded, toppled, or whatever, the timing was pretty terrible and I thought it made more sense to stay focused on AF until it was "successful." However that might be defined. Instead I think it was forgotten, and we doubled our mess. Or so it seems.

You're skipping over the question: did Iraq need to be invaded, toppled, or whatever?

Boston doesn't really count, does it? Wasn't that a domestic attacker?

From Wikipedia: "During an initial interrogation in the hospital, Dzhokhar alleged that Tamerlan was the mastermind. He said they were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups. According to him, they learned to build explosive devices from an online magazine of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.[/QUOTE]

You tell me if it "doesn't count."

But this is a case of statistics don't lie, statisticians do. Your contrast of 200 years vs 13 glosses over a few important details, like technological feasibility, motive ... those 13 years had far more intent and capability than the previous history of the world combined.

Statisticians don't just lie, sometimes they make stuff up out of whole cloth.

Listen to yourself?! You're seriously trying to say that a terrorist attack on domestic soil is less likely under the current conditions in the middle east vs if we had the whole region under our thumb? Any uprising on their part would be domestic; to them, not us.

How exactly does having them "under our thumb" keep them from attacking us? Will we be sealing their borders to keep them from leaving? Monitoring their communications to make sure they're not contacting any buddies outside our influence? Have you even considered the consequences of trying to conquer the entire Middle East? How far "under our thumb" are you able/willing to keep them?

Another pointless critique; you use ordinary channels to fill a job before resorting to extraordinary ones. And as for your concern about losing their allegiance to a higher bidder? You mean like happens to our Congress?

Not my fault you don't know the problems with mercenaries.

I think it's a little premature to hash out those details, don't you?

So, you're not bothering with planning ahead... that's the kind of thinking that screwed up the region in the first place; you're repeating the same old mistakes...

No gun ownership rights, that much is clear.

Gun control; good luck with that; I'm sure you'll have no difficulty wih that one.

They're pretty much serfdoms now, right?

Are they? Do you even know? Have you bothered to investigate?

No, you haven't -- you're going to charge in completely ignorant, and be left scratching your head when it all blows up (literally and figuratively) in your face.

Couldn't be too hard to improve their standard of living and still collect tribute.

Couldn't be too hard at all -- I'm sure they'll greet us as liberators.... could you at least make some new and original mistakes?

No say in US politics obviously, but put up a suggestion box; our appointed Dukes will need kindling sometime. lol They'll be mad we're stealing all their oil anyway. You must admit we get accused of that, and haven't taken a drop. Kind of a "how do you like me now?"

So, tyranny, oppression, taxation without representation -- you have studied history in high school, haven't you?

Hey, not everybody can be King. Tribute collected is dependent on leaving a better standard of living than they have now. Just not be too much.

"better standard" according to whom? And you're assuming that the tribute will be handed over voluntarily -- what do you plan to do with those who don't comply?

On what basis can the US have pretense for morals? Propping up (and tearing down) leaders all over the place? And you just want to abandon everything and say "oops?" That's somehow better?

An arsonist is not required to rebuild the building he burns down -- nor is he orderd to keep burning until he gets it right.

Just think of it as a corporate hostile takeover; perfectly legal.

It's called "conquest." If you can't call it what it is, why are you bothering to justify it?

Some very strange wording. Who do you refer to? And last I checked, boko haram had not yet targeted Israel. But speaking of "thought experiment," you know your ideas here will never happen either.

Of course I know they'll never happen -- Supporting Israel is all but pavlovian in our political climate... that doesn't make it a good idea.

Oh I get your idea now! Muslim killing Muslim is MUCH more moral than imposing a stable Gov't on the whole place and making it productive, improving everyone's life in the process.

Muslim killing Muslim is a whole lot preferable to Muslim killing us. You seem to think world peace through conquest is not only more moral, but is actually feasible. The thought of them fighting back hasn't even entered your mind... why is that? How big a thumb do you think you can keep hundreds of millions of people under?

Back to reality, somebody ought to help these guys determine sensible boundaries w/o having to hash out every inch of God forsaken land via bloodshed.

Impossible -- your conquest idea only insures that the blood spilled will be either ours, or by us.


Foreign policy 101: Every war is a turf war. They're going to fight, kill, and die over their borders -- the only question is whether they fight each other or us.

I vote "not us." You?

England drew up the map, and a lot of these clashes are only because incompatible cultures got forced to play nice with one another.

Which clearly they didn't -- you're going to do a better job?

A lot of territorial disputes are foregone conclusions. External influence could be diplomacy w/o military intervention.

Funny, you were praising the use of the "big stick" not too long ago. Now you think they're going to listen to you without it?

A valid function of the UN? Let them agree on how much turf they can't agree on, and kill each over over those areas, w/o having to fight over everything. Its sad that their re-drawn borders will no doubt be along religious lines, but that's their deal.

So how is that different from what I proposed? I'm just not naive enough to think they're going to listen to the UN, or that an outside influence can do with without military force -- you suddenly seem to think it's possible.

Here, our first mistake is financing the creation of Israel, and the subsequent ones are the Govt's in the region we have propped up and torn down.

No -- our first mistake was the creation of Israel, our subsequent mistakes are our continual public displays of support.

How do we fix the subsequent ones again?

You're about to get it right:

You have us walking away from everything.

Exactly -- make it known that Israel is on its own. And let them redraw their borders their way.

You mean like by denying them nuclear powered electricity? Good point. Why does the IAEA exist?

To shake fingers and say "no," and not much else -- how do they enforce their decisions? What power does it have against those who refuse to comply?

Iran is in the process of mellowing out -- but that doesn't mean they're there yet. Even my non-interventionist policy is counterbalanced with a bit of prudence.

Iran is the angry reckless teen of the world -- you don't let them have the car keys just yet.

And you think the grief with the nutters over evolution and separation of Church and State is bad?? My man, you are walking headlong into the wacky world of Biblical prophecy ... be afraid, be very afraid.

Which is where I agree with you that Christianity has no place in politics... look at the mess it's gotten us into here.

There will be no rational National discourse on abandoning Israel. I think the best we can do there is stoke their natural proclivity to resent US aid, and the control that comes with it. We might even be past the 1/2 way point?

Or tell the fundies that if Israel really is God's country, fine -- let HIM protect it; we're done.

I know; never going to happen, but you gotta admit, it'd be immensely satisfying -- and watching the fundies slip on their own mouth froth would be almost worth the political career suicide.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Theophilus:

Ignoring the morality of attempting to conquer the entire Middle East and keep it under your thumb, have you given so much as a single thought to the feasability of it?

 

[theophilus777]

You're skipping over the question: did Iraq need to be invaded, toppled, or whatever?

I think at some point, Saddam's regime needed to be removed. Clearly we acted well after the worst of his atrocities, so there was no reason to rush. We rushed in, like fools. At the time, the whole thing made me wonder if Iraq wasn't the original goal. I make no pretense of being able to sort out the true US motives, even though I watched all that unfold far morseo than I've ever watched the news, before or since.

And do realize that the scenarios I've laid out here are merely in contrast to that strange world of what really happened.

You tell me if it "doesn't count."

I already did. No, I don't count that as the same thing. No connection to organized terrorist groups.

How exactly does having them "under our thumb" keep them from attacking us? Will we be sealing their borders to keep them from leaving? Monitoring their communications to make sure they're not contacting any buddies outside our influence? Have you even considered the consequences of trying to conquer the entire Middle East? How far "under our thumb" are you able/willing to keep them?

This line of questioning is silly. You keep them "under your thumb" enough to make sure they don't attack US soil. That's the whole point.

Not my fault you don't know the problems with mercenaries.

I thought we already discussed your parade of strawmen? Dukes in a regional serfdom don't do the fighting.

Gun control; good luck with that; I'm sure you'll have no difficulty wih that one.

That sort of resistance is called "armed conflict." Its over when they're disarmed, quit fighting, and/or dead. We've never encountered too much difficulty of this sort in this region since WWII. This is the one area we've been good at.

"better standard" according to whom? And you're assuming that the tribute will be handed over voluntarily -- what do you plan to do with those who don't comply?

The regional Dukes being Judge Dredd (a movie, not a comic book btw) answers that for you. You make an example of them, but we don't need to crucify anyone, despite their Muslim neighbors doing that recently. See? Moral improvement, standard of living improvement; conquest, Alexander the Great style. Surely we can do better than he did.

It's called "conquest." If you can't call it what it is, why are you bothering to justify it?

It's called a joke. And you still haven't shown any moral failing beyond what we've already done. An arsonist who fixes his damage is more moral than an arsonist who walks away and doesn't get caught, or who gets caught but escapes justice. And I take exception to labeling ourselves as criminals. That is exactly what gives rise to this dystopian thought experiment, don't you see?

Muslim killing Muslim is a whole lot preferable to Muslim killing us.

Ok, agreed. If only we could count on them to keep it that way, right? Is that your definition of the moral high ground?

You seem to think world peace through conquest

You and your strawmen are like a little kid with his hand in the cookie jar. Caught again ...

The thought of them fighting back hasn't even entered your mind... why is that? How big a thumb do you think you can keep hundreds of millions of people under?

Now I know why Catholic nuns use a ruler when they teach. Sheesh, don't you ever stop? First of all, the problem here is how SMALL a thumb will suffice to maintain control. Next, of course they will fight back. That's why military victory, such as has already been achieved and is not even much of a contest, is phase 1. (No mercenaries) Pity the fool ... I suspect most of their population will lay down their arms peacefully. They do for the Talibs ...

Foreign policy 101: Every war is a turf war. They're going to fight, kill, and die over their borders -- the only question is whether they fight each other or us.

I vote "not us." You?

This is now the mindless use of a meme. Not every scrap of turf need be fought over. Much of it they agree on what is who's. The war comes from blurring those local differences by England's intervention, re-drawing the map. They could apparently use a little assistance with diplomacy, resulting in only fighting over what they actually dispute so intensely as to kill one another over. It might even be more humane (or moral, if you prefer) than any other idea entertained so far, including what has actually happened.

Funny, you were praising the use of the "big stick" not too long ago. Now you think they're going to listen to you without it?

Can't know until the point is raised. If Iran is the rebellious teen, these are what? 8 years olds poking each other in the eye? Sometimes you pick them up by the scruff of the neck and sort things out.

So how is that different from what I proposed? I'm just not naive enough to think they're going to listen to the UN, or that an outside influence can do with without military force -- you suddenly seem to think it's possible.

If this is about Iran and nuclear energy, yes I think we should not have stopped them. That gives them righteous indignation to hate us, and breed terrorists. I thought you said you were against that sort of thing? IAEA can only tell us when things are amiss. So then we let Israel off their leash and let them make another bombing run .... they love that sort of thing. But if we don;t keep them in check, when do they stop?



Or you have a good point, let THEM colonize the place; very saavy

Which is where I agree with you that Christianity has no place in politics... look at the mess it's gotten us into here.

I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. Or do you want to also assert D-Day was "Christianity involved in politics?" Because both are the same thing: compassion for the plight of the Jews. Founding Israel had been in the making a long time before we put USD into it. You yourself stated anti-semitism is why we wanted them there, rather than here. None of that equates to Christianity being the cause of re-creating Israel as a Nation.

 

[theophilus777]

Theophilus:

Ignoring the morality of attempting to conquer the entire Middle East and keep it under your thumb, have you given so much as a single thought to the feasability of it?

You betcha! *intentional Palinism*

Don't forget the context here is the butter and blankets idea first. You have yet to state how Tzu addressed this, beyond altruism which is a red herring. The colony idea only applies in 2003, as in instead of what we actually did. The military advice Bush got was it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers, far more than we ever deployed. So do that, starting in AF, and stay there until its "settled." Utilize that massive troop build-up, and move west in a wave. First make the side trip to Pakistan if need be, hopefully just to help the existing Gov't secure their nukes, and root out terrorists. Take what we want, and respect Nat'l borders that we can. What would make this feasible is what we failed to do in AF; not relinquish military control until civil control is established. With some overlap. This is where employees come in as Dukes and Princes; well paid, with inherent risk. Like the board game risk, stop expanding when you no longer have resources to do so. Fix the unemployment situation! Lehman Bros might not have even collapsed. Even if they still had, the recovery would've been much quicker.

 

[bhsmte]

You betcha! *intentional Palinism*

Don't forget the context here is the butter and blankets idea first. You have yet to state how Tzu addressed this, beyond altruism which is a red herring. The colony idea only applies in 2003, as in instead of what we actually did. The military advice Bush got was it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers, far more than we ever deployed. So do that, starting in AF, and stay there until its "settled." Utilize that massive troop build-up, and move west in a wave. First make the side trip to Pakistan if need be, hopefully just to help the existing Gov't secure their nukes, and root out terrorists. Take what we want, and respect Nat'l borders that we can. What would make this feasible is what we failed to do in AF; not relinquish military control until civil control is established. With some overlap. This is where employees come in as Dukes and Princes; well paid, with inherent risk. Like the board game risk, stop expanding when you no longer have resources to do so. Fix the unemployment situation! Lehman Bros might not have even collapsed. Even if they still had, the recovery would've been much quicker.

I don't care how many boots are on the ground, you are not going to change the culture of these people. This isn't Germany after world war 2, the culture is completely different.

The more you try to change these people, the more you tick them off.

 

[Armoured]

You betcha! *intentional Palinism*

Don't forget the context here is the butter and blankets idea first. You have yet to state how Tzu addressed this, beyond altruism which is a red herring. The colony idea only applies in 2003, as in instead of what we actually did. The military advice Bush got was it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers, far more than we ever deployed. So do that, starting in AF, and stay there until its "settled." Utilize that massive troop build-up, and move west in a wave. First make the side trip to Pakistan if need be, hopefully just to help the existing Gov't secure their nukes, and root out terrorists. Take what we want, and respect Nat'l borders that we can. What would make this feasible is what we failed to do in AF; not relinquish military control until civil control is established. With some overlap. This is where employees come in as Dukes and Princes; well paid, with inherent risk. Like the board game risk, stop expanding when you no longer have resources to do so. Fix the unemployment situation! Lehman Bros might not have even collapsed. Even if they still had, the recovery would've been much quicker.

Wow. And where does the money for this massive uptick in military deployment come from?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You betcha! *intentional Palinism*

Bad choice of role models.

Don't forget the context here is the butter and blankets idea first.

Which their governments will refuse.

You have yet to state how Tzu addressed this, beyond altruism which is a red herring. The colony idea only applies in 2003, as in instead of what we actually did.

Ok, so, ignoring that the leaders of these nations don't trust you and would never allow your "humanitarians" in -- and by your admission, they have valid reasons not to -- that leads to the outright military conquest and complete subjugation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and.... where else, exactly?

How large would the American Empire in the Middle East be?

The military advice Bush got was it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers, far more than we ever deployed. So do that, starting in AF, and stay there until its "settled."

So, out of the 1.37 million total active duty armed forces members, many of whom are stationed around the world for good reason, how many "hundreds of thousands" are you ready (note I didn't say "able") to spare for this conquest?

Utilize that massive troop build-up, and move west in a wave. First make the side trip to Pakistan if need be, hopefully just to help the existing Gov't secure their nukes, and root out terrorists.

Pakistan is our ally -- as long as we're in the neighborhood, shall we conquer India?

Take what we want,

Translation: plunder

and respect Nat'l borders that we can.

As much as any conqueror "can" respect national borders.

What would make this feasible is what we failed to do in AF; not relinquish military control until civil control is established.

Civil control by whom? The Afghanis, or us?

With some overlap.

Oh, goody -- I was afraid there wouldn't be any infighting...

This is where employees come in as Dukes and Princes; well paid, with inherent risk. Like the board game risk, stop expanding when you no longer have resources to do so. Fix the unemployment situation! Lehman Bros might not have even collapsed. Even if they still had, the recovery would've been much quicker.

I see -- and who's going to pay them?

Oh, the conquered, of course.

Not willingly, so how do you propose to get them to cough up the cash?

 

[Armoured]

Not to mention, where do you intend to get the soldiers from? IIRC, the US military is already having a hard time maintaining troop numbers.