War on Terror

[mgb]

Can America keep fighting the war on terror? And will bin Laden be caught/die before the war is over?

I say not for much longer. As much danger as there is, it is driving the US economy into the tank. With an expected 7 trillion in debt I don't see how insane military spending can continue.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=930

GNN is great.

So as an American (if you are) what are you plans if a draft is instated? I don't see how the US can fight this war on anymore fronts without the draft.

[Chill]

You assume that the Dubya and the gang want an end to The War On Terror (TM). Oh I doubt the draft will be reinstated, that would get Americans pissed at the government, not scared of the bad terrorists. Besides, I doubt Dubya cares about the debt.

[Groty]

The War On Terror (TM)
I can't stop laughing to post... That is hilarious!

[mgb]

I know they want it to continue I just can't see how it will. So do you see some form of conciliation between Iran and N. Korea? If so, how does the US expect to back up the peace with power?

Also, could the situation in Israel and Palestine also inflame the War on Terror that a draft is needed? I see Bush wading into that situation more and more and I am not sure how far he is willing to go?

I guess I am wondering when the American military industrial machine can sustain itself anymore and what the consequences of that will be.

[mgb]

I can't stop laughing to post... That is hilarious!

I see a lucrative T-Shirt business.

[SheepDog]

For starters, if you're going to be in a war, I say you need to make honest assesments of the "enemy" if you plan to win. We need to move beyond the fairy tale that is "they hate us because of our freedoms" or other such nonsense. We as a nation need to develop SUSTAINABLE policies toward others.
[edit: typo]

[mgb]

For starters, if you're going to be in a war, I say you need to make honest assesments of the "enemy" if you plan to win. We need to move beyond the fairy tale that is "they hate us because of our freedoms" or other such nonsense. We as a nation need to develop SUSTAINABLE policies toward others.
[edit: typo]

I wonder when empathy for the enemy comes in. It was the most important lesson I got out of the Fog of War.

Is there room to negotiate with the terrorists to end the war?

[booyalab]

For starters, if you're going to be in a war, I say you need to make honest assesments of the "enemy" if you plan to win. We need to move beyond the fairy tale that is "they hate us because of our freedoms" or other such nonsense. We as a nationi need to develop SUSTAINABLE policies toward others.

what would your honest assessment be? What would "sustainable policies" involve?

"nationi, the san fransisco treat.." sorry

[Chill]

I know they want it to continue I just can't see how it will. So do you see some form of conciliation between Iran and N. Korea? If so, how does the US expect to back up the peace with power?

Also, could the situation in Israel and Palestine also inflame the War on Terror that a draft is needed? I see Bush wading into that situation more and more and I am not sure how far he is willing to go?

I guess I am wondering when the American military industrial machine can sustain itself anymore and what the consequences of that will be.

Peace???? That word isn't even mentioned in the plan!

Oh I see Bush wading into Israel only if he had nothing else to do, or if he wanted a nice 'gift' for the army of Israeli sub-machine guns.

Oh it's the 'industrial' part of the machine that keeps in going.

[booyalab]

I wonder when empathy for the enemy comes in. It was the most important lesson I got out of the Fog of War.

Is there room to negotiate with the terrorists to end the war?

empathy as an individual creed for dealing with individual people is commendable, but as a basis for foreign policy it's damn foolish....especially if you're not Canada.

[SheepDog]

For just one tiny part of the assessment, let's start with a full, English translation of OBL's latest message to the US. [please post a link if you can find it!]

[Chill]

I wonder when empathy for the enemy comes in. It was the most important lesson I got out of the Fog of War.

Is there room to negotiate with the terrorists to end the war?

The main problem is that they don't want to negotiate with us even more than dubya wants to negotiate with them. I figure that they see us as less than human. Something sneaky, less noble, or something like that. That's why they can do what they do, they've developed a culture of dehumanizing The West

[SheepDog]

A sustainable energy policy would also be nice.

[SheepDog]

empathy as an individual creed for dealing with individual people is commendable, but as a basis for foreign policy it's damn foolish....especially if you're not Canada.
Are you saying a nation should have no regard for the effect of it's policies on others? Would you say that is a very pragmatic approach?

FWIW, this may be a semantic distinction. Empathy may be implying total understanding and sympathetic feelings toward others. There's certainly some room for gray areas in the degree.

[booyalab]

Are you saying a nation should have no regard for the effect of it's policies on others? Would you say that is a very pragmatic approach?

FWIW, this may be a semantic distinction. Empathy may be implying total understanding and sympathetic feelings toward others. There's certainly some room for gray areas in the degree.

I think you just skimmed what I said and assumed I have the most ignorant and extreme version of my viewpoint there is. (read: BASIS FOR)

[SheepDog]

The main problem is that they don't want to negotiate with us even more than dubya wants to negotiate with them. I figure that they see us as less than human. Something sneaky, less noble, or something like that. That's why they can do what they do, they've developed a culture of dehumanizing The West
What DO they want?

As for dehumanizing the enemy, I've seen A LOT of people here in the US that dehumanize the people that happen to be the same ethnicity as these terrorists. Gladly, I don't see too much of that on this forum.

[SheepDog]

I think you just skimmed what I said and assumed I have the most ignorant and extreme version of my viewpoint there is. (read: BASIS FOR)
Thank you for clarifying.

[Chill]

What DO they want?

As for dehumanizing the enemy, I've seen A LOT of people here in the US that dehumanize the people that happen to be the same ethnicity as these terrorists. Gladly, I don't see too much of that on this forum.

The immediate want they have, if for us to remove all our troops for all Arab Islamic countries, and stop supporting Israel.

There are levels of dehumanization, but I won't dispute that there are Americans view Muslims, the same way terrorists hold Americans

[booyalab]

What DO they want?

As for dehumanizing the enemy, I've seen A LOT of people here in the US that dehumanize the people that happen to be the same ethnicity as these terrorists. Gladly, I don't see too much of that on this forum.

I've seen some, but that's a pretty subjective diversion.

[SheepDog]

The immediate want they have, if for us to remove all our troops for all Arab Islamic countries, and stop supporting Israel.

That seems to be their point. Since we don't seem willing to do either of those things, then I bet we're in for a long, long ride.

[booyalab]

I heard something like we still have troops in all the countries we've fought in the past century (or longer?) (excluding the ones to which we only sent aid to anti-commie insurgents)

[mgb]

empathy as an individual creed for dealing with individual people is commendable, but as a basis for foreign policy it's damn foolish....especially if you're not Canada.

I would argue that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which posed a far great threat to the US than it has faced before or since, was resolved because the US and USSR decided to talk to each other before blowing each other up. It came down to people "knowing" what Krustchev(?) was going through to stop it.

[mgb]

Peace???? That word isn't even mentioned in the plan!

Oh I see Bush wading into Israel only if he had nothing else to do, or if he wanted a nice 'gift' for the army of Israeli sub-machine guns.

Oh it's the 'industrial' part of the machine that keeps in going.

I think Bush is going after some sort of Peace Prize. Or at least a legacy. I think he is going to throw a lot into peace in Israel.

[mgb]

What DO they want?

As for dehumanizing the enemy, I've seen A LOT of people here in the US that dehumanize the people that happen to be the same ethnicity as these terrorists. Gladly, I don't see too much of that on this forum.

I think they want the US to stop spreading its sphere of influence into their countries. When I say US I mean the social, economic and political influence western countries, most prominently the US exert.

I guess its a matter of the US having their fingers in too many pies. So should the US have their fingers in so many pies? Back to original question sort of.

[SheepDog]

I think it's useful to consider how the following kind of "political influence" is seen by other nations:


from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3757923.stm

From its foundation in 1991, with the backing of the US Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence, (the Iraqi National Accord (INA) party) supported the idea of fostering a coup from within the Iraqi army to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but its attempts ended disastrously.
Just one of many pies.

[mgb]

So is the US wrong in what it is doing?

[Groty]

I heard something like we still have troops in all the countries we've fought in the past century (or longer?) (excluding the ones to which we only sent aid to anti-commie insurgents)Sure, most of them. Many of those countries see the Military as being an occupying force. Think about the psychological ramifications of having a foreign nations forces on your soil. Their reaction must always be taken into consideration when the people govern themselves. I'm told that most military personnel in South Korea leave the bases as little as possible. They aren't liked much. Something about splitting up families, forcing people to fight their brothers and cousins. The Korean War is seen as our war, not Korea's.

Oops, being a a little empathetic here.

I'd like to do a little experiment. Let's invite a nation like Germany to move an entire military base into, say, Upstate New York. Air power, tanks, troops, everything. Not too far from the business center of the U.S.. It wouldn't only piss off Americans, but the Canadian's would get concerned too.

La la la...

[SheepDog]

So is the US wrong in what it is doing?
Everything they do is right.
or
Everything they do is wrong.
or
Some of what they do is right, some of what they do is wrong.

I say "they" because so much of it is hidden from "us".

[SheepDog]

Groty, you're clearly an idealistic fool. ;)

[Groty]

Groty, you're clearly an idealistic fool. ;)I was friends with some Korean's in college. They had suggested that experiment. Speaking with foreigners first hand always provides me with an undigested version of international affairs. I work with a Palestinian right now. About a year ago, I got up the guts to ask him about Sharon's arming of the Christians in Beirut twenty years ago. His family had fled to Beirut. He and twenty other people hid in a tiny little room for 3 days as the bulldozers went by. Ethnic Cleansing wasn't a popular term back then, but it definitely happened.

[PsiKik]

Some of my opinions.
The 'war' is too profitable for the military-industrial complex to be ended,
the concept of permanent, unending war is what people like Cheny want.
Bush, or more properly, his handlers don't have a clue as to economics, theyre blinded
by pure greed and lust for power.
They don't really give a damn about normal, people, arabs or american.

Terror is a concept, a method for waging war. How can you fight a method?
The reasons why the terrorists attack have to be dealt with - I agree withan earlier poster that they are fighting us because of our behaviour in the World not because of who we are and 'our behaviour' is actually that of the multinational mega corporations and the plutocrats that run them.

[Groty]

The 'war' is too profitable for the military-industrial complex to be ended.That is the bottom line. It's like the drug war. How much money is spent on that every year? Hell, the Taliban had destroyed the poppy fields in Afghanistan, but Bush is letting the tribes grow again.


My thoughts on Iran and North Korea

Iran - They are changing now, internally. Revolution is happening, slowly. I have a feeling that nation will be the next Poland. The last thing we should do is give the populace an external enemy. Let them concentrate on the internal enemy.

North Korea - They have nukes and they can obliterate everything from San Diego to Seattle. So can several other countries, like Pakistan. They present China and Russia with a greater problem than us. Hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring over their borders every year. China and Russia are the key to the North Korean situation.

[Arioch]

Reading this thread I find myself remembering a few interesting things that I've read. For example a rapport written in 2000 in which they planned to invade Afghanistan etc etc.

A major problem is that events are occuring under false pretenses.. this is what worries me. Put together with a feeble minded population and we have the perfect situation in which one could... oh I dunno try to take over the world. which brings me to another document in which the current administration has drawn up their world domination plans. Which their following.

Then I picture all these power in the hands of neo-conservative republicans. Which in itself would be worrying if I didn't think they had the ethics of a sociopath.

Now, maybe I'm just being paranoid but I don't think that their agenda will be of any good to anyone but themselves. therefor I'm going to vote that it's "bad"

[mgb]

Everything they do is right.
or
Everything they do is wrong.
or
Some of what they do is right, some of what they do is wrong.

I say "they" because so much of it is hidden from "us".

So is US involvement in third party pre-emptive attacks a good policy for the US and the world or is it a negative one.

I say negative. Osama bin Laden did not start his career as a terrorist bombing the US. He started by bombing the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan. He learned his techniques from the CIA and it has apparently backfired.

I guess I would also ask why it is hidden from "us"?

[SheepDog]

We went into the first gulf war to prove that you can't preemptively invade another sovereign nation.
We went into the second gulf war to prove that you can preemptively invade another sovereign nation.

Secrets. It's awfully ironic. When discussing Patriot Act, the defense is "if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry". Shouldn't that also apply to government policies?

I suspect that some of the actions the gov undertakes are very legitimate with regard to protecting the nation from threats. I also suspect that some of the actions are not so legitimate. There may be idealistic reasons for the latter, but every time I look, I see financial reasons. For example, the US agreement with Saudi Arabia presents HUGE profits for the involved businesses of both countries. Our forces being there are explicity for the purpose of protecting those business interests.

[mgb]

I guess I would say that a great deal of the problems facing the US today are a result of a cold-war "shadow". Even though the cold war is over the "weapons" (that includes people too) are still around and are being used.

For example the Iraqi chemical weapons program was given to Iraq by the US.

Its almost as if the US spend 30 years to create another war to fight that will last another 30 years. Having done this does it take away some of the legitimacy?

As for the Patriot Act, it seems like and probably has been called, McCarthyism. Is the Patriot Act for safety or to justify a witch hunt?

[Arioch]

We went into the first gulf war to prove that you can't preemptively invade another sovereign nation.
We went into the second gulf war to prove that you can preemptively invade another sovereign nation.

Secrets. It's awfully ironic. When discussing Patriot Act, the defense is "if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry". Shouldn't that also apply to government policies?

I suspect that some of the actions the gov undertakes are very legitimate with regard to protecting the nation from threats. I also suspect that some of the actions are not so legitimate. There may be idealistic reasons for the latter, but every time I look, I see financial reasons. For example, the US agreement with Saudi Arabia presents HUGE profits for the involved businesses of both countries. Our forces being there are explicity for the purpose of protecting those business interests.

Amusing little fact: America actually gave Iraq the "ok" for invading Kuwait. It seems that Iraq was annoyed at something Kuwait was doing at asked the Us if they mind if they invade Kuwait since they wouldn't stop it (iirc it had something to do with oil...*sigh*) The US said yes and Iraq attacked. And then America changed it's opinions.

I find this sad and disturbing.

[SheepDog]

Amusing little fact: America actually gave Iraq the "ok" for invading Kuwait. It seems that Iraq was annoyed at something Kuwait was doing at asked the Us if they mind if they invade Kuwait since they wouldn't stop it (iirc it had something to do with oil...*sigh*) The US said yes and Iraq attacked. And then America changed it's opinions.

I find this sad and disturbing.
I recall the story being that they told us about it, moved the troops to the border, and waited for a response. Since we didn't respond explicity, they apparently took it as an approval, or at least a sign that we wouldn't do anything serious about it. But yes, it's unsettling, not only that it happened, but more so that it's not part of the public discourse regarding the first gulf war.

[PsiKik]

As for the Patriot Act, it seems like and probably has been called, McCarthyism. Is the Patriot Act for safety or to justify a witch hunt?

I would like to know what the motivation is for those who have created the patriot act - it certainly is not only for making it easier to prosecute terrorists; there are too many loopholes that make it applicable to ordinary crime or even just political dissenters.

I suspect that there is a certain element in law enforcement, government that just likes the idea of controlling people in a classic police state style. Would they be more SJ?

So, my questions are these:
What is the psychology of those behind the patriot act?

Is the 'war on terror' being stretched out to accomplish other ends?

Is the govt actually doing all it can, relevant actions to actually find solutions to the problem of potential terror attacks? I think not.

[Arioch]

I recall the story being that they told us about it, moved the troops to the border, and waited for a response. Since we didn't respond explicity, they apparently took it as an approval, or at least a sign that we wouldn't do anything serious about it. But yes, it's unsettling, not only that it happened, but more so that it's not part of the public discourse regarding the first gulf war.

It reminds me of the (sad) statistic that the more you actually watched the news etc on public newschannels the less you actually knew about the world.
Sad... very very sad.

[Groty]

Amusing little fact: America actually gave Iraq the "ok" for invading Kuwait. It seems that Iraq was annoyed at something Kuwait was doing at asked the Us if they mind if they invade Kuwait since they wouldn't stop it (iirc it had something to do with oil...*sigh*) The US said yes and Iraq attacked. And then America changed it's opinions.

I find this sad and disturbing.
I think it had to do with loans. Kuwait loaned Iraq huge sums of money to help them fight Iran. Then the Kuwaiti's wanted the money back, they wanted to buy Kiawah Island in South Carolina... oops, mind wandering. Anyways, the Kuwaiti's probably threatened to seize all Iraqi's oil waiting in Kuwait to ship out or shut off the pipelines or something.

[Claverhouse]

I recall the story being that they told us about it, moved the troops to the border, and waited for a response. Since we didn't respond explicity, they apparently took it as an approval, or at least a sign that we wouldn't do anything serious about it. But yes, it's unsettling, not only that it happened, but more so that it's not part of the public discourse regarding the first gulf war.


Na, a Miss Jean Kirkpatrick, ambassador at the time I think or something to do with your State, actually explicitly said to the Ba'athist regime that the US would have no interest in their exploit ( which a/ was driven by extreme need ( the Iranian war was intensely draining despite the noble support the US gave to Saddam, as munificent as the US's earlier support to the Allies in WWII before and after America joined them: mind you, despite the fact the Iranians were America's sworn enemies and had recently humiliated her, the Reaganite regime also nobly supported them also with cash ). b/ was inspired partly by the Kuwaiti practice of slant-withdrawal of Iraqi oil. c/ Kuwait was originally a province of what was to be Iraq, but the map was messed up by the British in our own time-honoured practice.

Still, a lot of blood has flowed under the bridge since those far-off days of Bush I.



Claverhouse :ph34r: