The War on Terrorism; opinions. (Americans only.)

[Admiral Piett]

This is one area in which we're agreement; Saudi Arabia has to be the real target for the War on Terror to be meaningful. My expectation however is that we're deceiving the House of Saud as to our intentions until we have the capability to invade them quickly. Imagine the economic damage if they had time to whip the oil market as we built up to invade them. With a large occupation force in Iraq poised over their heads, they couldn't do that.

Of course, I could end up rather disappointed, but I prefer to remain optimistic in that regard if not in others.

And then face the Jihad to end all Jihads.May I remember you that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia? I tend to believe that the muslim population in the world will not be very happy about your invasion.Instead that by Saudi princes terrorism will be financed by the average muslim,a source of money much more difficult to keep in check.

[Guest]

there are more ways to fight a war than with guns, as far as i know the fereral goverment has made a remarkable attempt to recruit hackers and intelligence operatives. Why bomb wall street when u can hack in and make OBL's money vanish. why bomb an area when a well places sniper shot will be just as effective?

[jegs2]

This war is not winnable, for there is no way to exterminate every international terrorist organization. But so long as the enemy is defending its interests and is under constant attack on all fronts, it maintains less ability to sustain a cohesive offensive against us on the battlefield of its choosing. In short, the best defense is a good offense.

[Admiral Piett]

This war is not winnable, for there is no way to exterminate every international terrorist organization. But so long as the enemy is defending its interests and is under constant attack on all fronts, it maintains less ability to sustain a cohesive offensive against us on the battlefield of its choosing. In short, the best defense is a good offense.

Again,terrorists are not a military concerned with defending a state.
Do you expect that all the terrorists currently in the US will leave the country to defend some holes in the ME insted of striking the US mainland?
Terrorism is not about facing an enemy military in an all out battle.

[jegs2]

This war is not winnable, for there is no way to exterminate every international terrorist organization. But so long as the enemy is defending its interests and is under constant attack on all fronts, it maintains less ability to sustain a cohesive offensive against us on the battlefield of its choosing. In short, the best defense is a good offense.

Again,terrorists are not a military concerned with defending a state.
Do you expect that all the terrorists currently in the US will leave the country to defend some holes in the ME insted of striking the US mainland?
Terrorism is not about facing an enemy military in an all out battle.

Not at all, but terrorists are interested in keeping their supply sources, funding sources, operational bases and key leaders in tact. So long as they are under constant attack, they've less time to plan, resource, rehearse and conduct offensive actions. Will they still do so? Yes. Will they be as successful as they would have had we left them alone? Unlikely...

Keep in mind that the attacks on terrorism are waged accross the spectrum, not just "head-on" military strikes. Furthermore, do not think for a minute that a defeat of Iraq would not demoralize many of the elements in the Middle East that support terrorism. They still consider Saddam Hussein the victor in the Gulf War. Afterall, Saddam's still in power, while the US president who "defeated" him is not.

[Admiral Piett]

Not at all, but terrorists are interested in keeping their supply sources, funding sources, operational bases and key leaders in tact.

The problem is that a large portion of the stuff listed above may litterally be,or is, behind our homes.I am for full spectrum attacks,only that I believe that conventional military attacks are only a very small part of the picture.
I do not know if that will demoralize them but surely it will enrage them, maybe transforming generic antiwesterns into Al Quaeda recruits.
It is necessary to evaluate what factor outweights the other.Mine evaluation is that Afghanistan was probably worth,but Iraq is not.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Under no circumstances do I believe that, Wong, but its politically impossible to the point it isn't worth mentioning. Pipe dreams aren't my love. Personally, I find the Whabbism vomit that Arabia spreads and funds to be to cultural diversity what tsetse flies are to biodiversity: something not worth having if you can possibly exterminate it. I'd push for complete development of non-Saudi oil resources, including Russia and closer partnership with them, I'd alienate the Saudis ASAP, and I'd push for immediate production of alternative energy resources. The sooner we can cut them off and leave them to dround in their social quagmire, the better. I personally find the Saud family nothing save contemptable.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Admiral Piett, you do not understand the Arab thought system. Where as we value alliances and truces as noble and a sign of loyalty, these are not see as such by the Arab world. Alliances and truces are signs of weakness, shown only to advert immenent defeat. Why do you think Arafat turned down the Barak deal even though it was all but perfect and cranked up the Intifada? The Arab world respects strength. Where were the mass riots and and gov't overthrows when Afghanistan was squashed? They weren't there, except for some pitiful rabble that proved futile in a few cities. And they know this. What they saw was a powerful nation squash a weak one. They respect authority and strength. This is evident in the whole way their culture operates and how the Arab nations run their military. Loyalty exists only completely within the family. All others are to be competed against or dominated, depending on social background.

One of the reasons we suffer from a growth in terrorism was because they observed that due to our impotent response to the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the U.S.S. Cole, and how we did not depose Saddam during the First Gulf War, they concluded we must be stupid and timid. Enormously powerful, but exceedingly stupid. Where they come from, you shoot another man, and their family will kill you and another member of your family. A raped woman is stoned for impurity. Force is the law. Brutality is the means by which the gears of their society functions. Now, we have an oppurtunity to tie up loose end and squash a threat to the U.S. Saddam cannot be allowed to remain in power as he develops nuclear weapons (which ultimately are being used to solidify his position within Iraq, which is tenous and has led to an attempted coup'd'etat or two) and produces VX. If ignored, he will develop these weapons and resolidify his control over Iraq. He can begin to use his newfound weapons to push to become a major Middle East player. He could reverse U.N. sanctions already seen as hurting the Iraqi people by some morally and intellectually confused individuals (the reason they hurt them is because Saddam siezes the medical supplies and sells them to buy more weapons and got his country in this mess in the first place). Then he can ship out his oil, spread chemical weapons technology to nations who feel threatened by the U.S., even nuclear technology. Terrorists could be handed VX. Gas attacks have already been successful in Japan, no reason not in America. Saddam is vengeful and this is a likely possibility; he tried to kill Former President Bush in retaliation for the Gulf War. We couldn't directly confront him, as his nukes would be a direct threat to troops if he was in danger of being overthrown, and many in the Middle East, afraid of newfound Iraqi power, would oppose any U.S. action to avoid Saddam's wrath. The longer we wait, the more vastly complicated the problem becomes. We've come this close to confrontation. We must overthrow Saddam, a icon of defiance against the American infadel idiots which couldn't properly retaliate against the Hezbollah, to show them that the view we are an easy target is grossly mistaken. A liberal democracy in Iraq based on the European model would drive Western attitudes, liberal thought, social reform, and new money at the working class level into the Middle East. As we saw with Communist nations in Eastern Europe, they can't compete against such a neighbor and must modernize/liberalize to survive. The long-term domino affect would considerably ease discontent and social issues in the Middle East and accelerate their cultural advancement. The terrorists would be seen as having no friends anywhere. The U.S. is not to be trifled with, as we can strike the enemy whereever they are--this they will see. They will see an America that can fight back...an America who's strength is actually used. Politically, militarily, culturally, and economically I'd be a victory for the West. We'd infuse new life and change into the Muslim world while depriving the radicals and fundamentalists of another example of how America can be defied, and another source of weapons and training.

This is combination with the strong coercement of the Saudis to cease the desimination of Whabbism and shutting down the schools in Pakistan and pressurizing Musharraf to ease tensions, introduce honest democracy, and allow Western companies to settle in and produce, offering jobs while providing a moderating influence.

Even without this wide-range of benefits, we simply can't risk allowing Saddam to develop nukes. It's really a matter of wanting a huge new foriegn security problem to deal with that will eventually spread to become a European problem too, or fixing it before it begins.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And Admiral Piett, maybe you saw The Siege on attacks on NYC, or watch too much TV on Isreali crises, but it takes an enormous amount of funding, training, equipping, planning, organizing, and communication to do this. 9/11 was in the works for years . To assume current terrorisst actions are the result of recent events is fallacy: these attacks took up to 5 years in some circumstances to plan. These guys don't wake up in a Brooklyn apartment, decide to strap C4 to their torso, and go blow up a movie theater. Organized international terrorism striking at domesitic Western targets is a highly structured and financed affair. We CAN and WILL strike at targets which could and have provided support, supplies, training, finance, and recruits for these organizations. As well as the socio-political repercussions of showing that the U.S. was a sleeping giant that has now been awaken. This IS WAR, and in WAR you fight back. This is the way 21st Century conflicts will probably occur. It's time to stop dreaming the nice dreamworld concepts of a fluke caused solely by American Cold War policy and start realizing that this was happening during the Cold War, is happening in places that have nothing to do at all with Islam. It is happening in S. America, in Africa, all over the world. This is the new warfare. It is insidious and brutal and there is no honor to be found in its empty promises. We must fight this threat, we cannot roll over and treat it as solely a policing matter. It WILL get worse, and MORE nations will be embroiled in it. It's time to launch a counteroffensive against the insidious threat growing against the West in the Middle East since the 1970s. With luck we can change the tide before things get much worse. I hate to believe that we may one day be retaliating from a clandestine nuclear strike, but you never know.

It's a brave new world, or at least it had better be.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I need an edit button. Some of my sentences sound like GWB's. But still, I can support most of those points.

[Mr Bean]

The most dangerous and terrfing(At least to the popluas) Killer on a ramapage the Cops can't stop him has NEVER been done by any of these Groups and frankly its a damn effect one, If one sent thirty people in America, set em loose with AR-15s and told them to kill one a day you would have some HELL of a sitatuion, That would require a hell of alot of planing to get them in and out of the cops hands while killing but very little is reqiured for one man to grap a gun and go shoot some Americans, but frankly we never see that happing, Even the rescent attack of American Soilders on exrice in Kuwait was planed as the guards for the range(Ok so thier not fucking bright attacking Troops nearing a firing range) where bribed before hand

[Si tacet]

Just to add; the reason WHY Israel gets hit so often is due to several circumstances, none of which apply in the US's case:
1/ A border with a hostile regime who train, encourage & equip bombers.
2/ Support for the families of bombers by neighbouring regimes (I'd love to see what the USA would do ifSaddam give money to the families of any suicide bombers in NY, etc).
3/ Readily avaliable funding and equipment for terrorists- about the only thing Israel can do to stop the terrorists getting their weapons and oney is to occupy the WB and GZ.
4/ A 30 minute journey from a bomb-factory to the target-limiting chances for interception.

And as for selling weapons: if the US and UK didn't sell them, they'd get them elsewhere. This way, although morally wrong, we know what the enemy possesses, their limitations, and a couple of billion more intax revenue.
If you sell weapons to anyone, they will inevitably end up in the hands of the people who have the money to buy them. There are advantages to selling the Saudis, etc our weapons.
And lets not forget the possibility of target-specific computer viruses or other tactics that we couldn't have used otherwise..

Si tacet

[Admiral Piett]

Even without this wide-range of benefits, we simply can't risk allowing Saddam to develop nukes. It's really a matter of wanting a huge new foriegn security problem to deal with that will eventually spread to become a European problem too, or fixing it before it begins.

I have already covered this problem in an other thread.Suffice to repeat that if Iraq is currently a nuclear threat to be urgently removed Pakistan should already be a smoking crater.

[Admiral Piett]

And as for selling weapons: if the US and UK didn't sell them, they'd get them elsewhere. This way, although morally wrong, we know what the enemy possesses, their limitations, and a couple of billion more intax revenue.
If you sell weapons to anyone, they will inevitably end up in the hands of the people who have the money to buy them. There are advantages to selling the Saudis, etc our weapons.
And lets not forget the possibility of target-specific computer viruses or other tactics that we couldn't have used otherwise..
Si tacet

This means however handing advanced weapons that could be used tomorrow against you.If you think that the advantages are worth it,then it is fine for me.However you cannot complain if some other western country decide to do the same (france).

[Admiral Piett]

And Admiral Piett, maybe you saw The Siege on attacks on NYC, or watch too much TV on Isreali crises, but it takes an enormous amount of funding, training, equipping, planning, organizing, and communication to do this. 9/11 was in the works for years . To assume current terrorisst actions are the result of recent events is fallacy: these attacks took up to 5 years in some circumstances to plan. These guys don't wake up in a Brooklyn apartment, decide to strap C4 to their torso, and go blow up a movie theater. Organized international terrorism striking at domesitic Western targets is a highly structured and financed affair. We CAN and WILL strike at targets which could and have provided support, supplies, training, finance, and recruits for these organizations.

The problem is that these support structures are not necessarily for the most part located in ME shitholes.Face the reality,these people probably invest in Wall Street.Are you going to strike Wall Street with military force? It would be stupid.

As well as the socio-political repercussions of showing that the U.S. was a sleeping giant that has now been awaken. This IS WAR, and in WAR you fight back. This is the way 21st Century conflicts will probably occur. It's time to stop dreaming the nice dreamworld concepts of a fluke caused solely by American Cold War policy and start realizing that this was happening during the Cold War, is happening in places that have nothing to do at all with Islam. It is happening in S. America, in Africa, all over the world.

How many islamic terrorist strikes have taken place in S America? I am curious.
And when you are fighting people that you once supported I would say american foreign policies backfiring is a little more than a "dreamworld".

This is the new warfare. It is insidious and brutal and there is no honor to be found in its empty promises. We must fight this threat, we cannot roll over and treat it as solely a policing matter. It WILL get worse, and MORE nations will be embroiled in it. It's time to launch a counteroffensive against the insidious threat growing against the West in the Middle East since the 1970s. With luck we can change the tide before things get much worse. I hate to believe that we may one day be retaliating from a clandestine nuclear strike, but you never know.

May I remember you that the programs concerned with securing Russian nuclear stockpile,the source which supposedly supplies all these terrorists with nuclear materials, receive only one thid of the funds planned?
If I was one of those leftists I could say that it is precisely done on purpose in order to have an argument justify wars saying that they are to prevent nuclear terrorism.It would be stupid of course but the sad fact is that in reality you do not care much about the non proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It's a brave new world, or at least it had better be.

[Mr Bean]

Iraq is currently a nuclear threat to be urgently removed Pakistan should already be a smoking crater.

Your missing the point, Pakistan could be called a problem yes but WE are not the ones they daily denouce on state TV, We are not the one's hundred gather every-day screaming death to

Pakistan hates but one country truely just as that other country hates them

India/Pakistan

Its acutal one of the more stable regions in the area due to an insane chance

See India has a large popluation with no place to go and hates the Muslim popluas of Pakistan

See Pakistan just happens to hate India and wants thier weath and farming land

Imagin if you will a table, India is on one side, Pakistan is on the other, Both have Revoler's to each others eyes, each sit wondering if they could pull the trigger quick enough to kill the other but not be killed themsleves

Niether is going anywhere until one of them is gone

And thats the Pakistan/India sitaution in a nutshell, They don't give a flying fuck about the rest of the World(Though the US Gives them Aid to hunt Terriorsts in thier country its a good thing, more tanks to attack India)

The fact is the rest of the world could burn around them they would not care

It just Pakistan and India, Attack another by either country invites instant destruction by the other and thus if one could call it stable they are

But they are not a threat to the US

[Admiral Piett]

Your missing the point, Pakistan could be called a problem yes but WE are not the ones they daily denouce on state TV, We are not the one's hundred gather every-day screaming death to

Pakistan hates but one country truely just as that other country hates them

India/Pakistan

Its acutal one of the more stable regions in the area due to an insane chance

See India has a large popluation with no place to go and hates the Muslim popluas of Pakistan

See Pakistan just happens to hate India and wants thier weath and farming land

Imagin if you will a table, India is on one side, Pakistan is on the other, Both have Revoler's to each others eyes, each sit wondering if they could pull the trigger quick enough to kill the other but not be killed themsleves

Niether is going anywhere until one of them is gone

And thats the Pakistan/India sitaution in a nutshell, They don't give a flying fuck about the rest of the World(Though the US Gives them Aid to hunt Terriorsts in thier country its a good thing, more tanks to attack India)

The fact is the rest of the world could burn around them they would not care

It just Pakistan and India, Attack another by either country invites instant destruction by the other and thus if one could call it stable they are

But they are not a threat to the US

Well they could always transform themselves into a fundamentalist dictatorship, take one of their atomic bombs,put it into a container and send it in the US.
At least this is what everyone thinks that Iraq is going to do.

[Admiral Piett]

. We CAN and WILL strike at targets which could and have provided support, supplies, training, finance, and recruits for these organizations.

So I see you are planning to bomb London,because many Al Quaeda members found in Afghanistan came from there.