- Feb 9, 2014
- 24,532
- 10,579
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
Forcing them somewhere else just makes them someone else's problem.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here is what needs to happen in Iraq.
Pakistan resumes air strikes to flush insurgents from volatile border region | Reuters
Here is what needs to happen in Iraq.
Pakistan resumes air strikes to flush insurgents from volatile border region | Reuters
I don't think this is possible and I think the past 10 years are a testament to that.
QFT. What's the difference between 9/11 and a dead dairy cow?
How so? Nothing even remotely similar to this has been done in the last 10 years; or ever, to the best of my knowledge.
At least you didn't say dead yak. And utter disregard for human life noted.
Iraq should defend Iraq. Rather simple, actually.
I said dead yak in simile to my wife's navigational ability, and I stand by it. As for disregard for human life, I'm not the one demanding more troops be pointlessly thrown into the meat grinder for no appreciable gain, not to mention the associated collateral damage. I don't think it's me you want to be complaining about when it comes to disregarding human life.
If you want to accuse me of being tired of people using 9/11 in the hope of derailing any rational discussion by cheap appeal to emotion, well, hey, ya got me. Guilty as charged.
None of this makes any sense. You apparently forget how US got drawn into the WOT. Some of us prefer that sort of thing not happen again.
I couldn't tell if you were referring to Iran w/ nuclear energy, but I think its a good idea, provided UN scrutiny.
Can you explain how the current situation is different, on either front?
Still sounds like you're saying if we send drones to make strategic kills, and do it well, they'd be ok with that. i think we need some boots on the ground to do that, but they can be in small groups,. special ops. Somehow I think they'd still object.
I'm not missing that at all. I'm just saying the psychological advantage this would give us against a conventional enemy is lost, due to religious zeal, stupidity or lunacy, whichever you prefer to call it. the advantage is reduced to those we kill, w/o being killed ourselves.
And you have yet to defend your position that we can't kill them all. As much as I know about our arsenal, I suspect you know more. Which would mean you know we very well could.
So USA #1 = we suck? We attacked cities and armies. Not alliances, and certainly not strategy.
Altruism is a non-existent unicorn, but this is the wrong forum for that.
Alliance w/ AQ and/or Taliban. That was the primary stated reason, that most libs and doves here have forgotten.
Of course that ideology would have us march right across into Saudi Arabia, and maybe Egypt too. One colony from oil field to shining oil field would not be that difficult to conquer, and obviously keeping it intact would be superior.
Skillful diplomacy; walk softly and carry a big stick.
Point out we can push them off their precious territory rather easily, but have no real motivation to do so.
State plainly that it would be cheaper to simply do some of the Nation building we always do after blowing a place up, w/o needing to blow up AF, esp considering it was in a shambles to begin with.
Point out rather pointedly that the Taliban had 0 cred with the Int'l community because they had neglected their populace, not providing any essential services, and couldn't be considered a legit Gov't. Let 'em get piping mad if they want, when truth does that its needed.
Broker a peace deal if possible, that starts with a massive influx of humanitarian aid, coupled by media to show the world if they commit any human rights violations.
(Killing unarmed people counts) Make them put their money where their mouth is, if they think their populace really wants them in power they will improve their own position along with everybody else's. Make sure every other country knows the details of the deal before anybody sets foot in AF for the effort.
And if the Talibs refuse, our bargaining chip was normal warfare, but no Nation building. IOW, get out of dodge as soon as our military objective was completed. How long did that part of the operation take again? How much blood? How much treasure? How much did we do to remove their ability to do us harm? That part of it was actually pretty effective. All I'm saying is give them the choice, and make it one or the other but not both.
No liberation involved in this scenario; unabashed colonizers.
I see the point far better than you. You're the one confusing the Gospel with a text book for how to accomplish world peace.
That part of things is not designed for a willing populace. And again, we'd be far more moral than the Taliban ever was. (Unless you really really like long beards, I guess?)
SEE: post WWI Germany. We have sunk terrible blood and treasure, but not accomplished any lasting objective.
Keep tabs on them, and have them pay for it. You don't recall that was W's plan from the beginning?
Who said anything about "hero?" And colonizer, please. Empires colonize.
Actually I don't, and never did. Slow suicide is taking a hit like 911 and doing nothing.
I've laid out 2 drastically different plans.
But OBL was a start.
If we colonize, and rule, then they're not in competition with us and they can progress as rapidly as possible no problem.
And here I was thinking you might care about the plight of the Palestinians. No? You've been talking about removing their political objective ... if Israel kills all the Palestinians as they've been accused of, terrorism ceases?
Like I said easy to conquer difficult to maintain. Those pesky colonists are bound to become more trouble than they're worth sooner or later, but in the meantime there's profits to be made ol' chap! Why should Halliburton have all the luck?
Not peacekeepers at all, more like prison wardens, or maybe Dukes and Princes.
Finding competent people to (willingly) fill the positions is merely a logistical challenge.
Keeping them from becoming corrupt might prove harder.
I think we could do better than Merry Old England.
Different objective entirely. Different rules of engagement. Stare at Judge Dredd and you suddenly see things differently.
There's a reason these folks responded well to the likes of Saddam, and we don't need to resort to injustice to achieve order. We would need to make an example of swift justice though. I don't think separation of powers would be the order of the day ...
So we can rule out altruism then?
Balance of power means nothing either?
We're the God looking down at the ant farm? What happens when we turn the red ants loose on the black ants?
This scenario is a lot less moral than colonizing the place. Palestinians get rights violated sharply worse, their violence increases sharply, terrorism rises sharply with it, Israel responds with disproportionate force ...
how big would you like to see Israel become?
I mean the Palestinian refugee situation IS hopeless, right? Just euthanize them all, much more humane is it?
I'm thinking everyone would fare better if we just annexed it.
Altruism, bribery, tamato tomahto ... a deal's a deal.
That tactic is overused only once "they" give up their aspirations as terrorists. You already defined winning that way, remember? That really is what the war on terror is about. You're saying we should have done nothing; they would never give up their aspirations that way.
What part doesn't make sense to you? How do you think re-invading Iraq makes terrorism less likely elsewhere?
He seems to think that once you "colonize" a place, they automatically become all peaceful and docile...
Do you even know why terrorists attack us?
The sad thing is a lot of contributors in this and similar threads, and even some political commentators, genuinely seem to believe the "They hate us for our Freedom" line. Virtually none of the "bomb their cities flat, kill the adults, convert the children to Christianity" school seem to have even a passing familiarity with what these people are so angry about. And, perhaps more frighteningly, even less seem to care that they are so ignorant of the enemy's motivations.
As though you can ever hope to win a war if you don't understand what the enemy is fighting for.
What part doesn't make sense to you? How do you think re-invading Iraq makes terrorism less likely elsewhere?
It's not -- so why you're explicitly suggesting we do what we did then is, again, something of a mystery.
Not at all -- we still have the psychological advantage. It is less than it would be against a conventional enemy, but even religious people an be frustrated -- it just takes more work... too much to justify the expense of the drones.
Indeed -- so now you understand why your butter and Blankets strategy is doomed to fail.
No, we remember -- we also remember it was a lie.
Indeed -- except Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our allies, and maybe you need it explained that one does not conquer their own allies...
The Taliban isn't afraid of our big stick.
Is that why we haven't done it already? Lack of trying?
It may be a shambles, but to the people of Afghanistan, it's their shambles. They're not going to appreciate you blowing it up; you're drive them straight to the Taliban.
The problem is that we also have 0 cred in that area -- how much simpler can I make it for you? We're not wanted there.
Neither they nor anyone else cares if the populace "wants" them in power -- all that matters is they absolutely don't want US in power over there... don't you get it?
So, WWI-style obliteration; killing all the people we were claiming to want to save. That'll go over well with the international community...
So... conquest, then. Be the monsters they say we are, and justify every terrorist act against us -- past, present, and future.
Yeah, I guess it is rather ridiculous to look to the Gospels for messages on peace...
So we can be conquerors, as long as we tell ourselves we're better than the people we conquered? Sounds like the Roman Empire to me.
So your master plan is to do it all again exactly the same way -- but to preface it with a threat to do so if they don't let us "help" them first?
Quick suicide is taking a hit like 9/11 and fighting without thinking.
And are we safer for it?
Ah, someone to keep them properly oppressed and make sure they don't get out of line -- yeah, sounds like conquest to me.
Indeed -- how does one keep prisoners from becoming corrupt...
If we drop all pretense of morality -- you seem to have a head start on that.
Not an ant farm; more like a hornet's nest. We stop poking it, and they stop stinging us.
Which aspirations would those be? Do you even know why terrorists attack us?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?