General discussion


Will Iraq ever achieve stability ...

By jardinier ·
without the permanent presence of a large number of occupying troops, presumably mostly from the US?

Please note. As promised earlier, I will not make any adverse comments on the leaders of any nations until such time as they make some new move or policy which invites comment.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

35 total posts (Page 3 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

We tried that for 30 years...

by Packet Spoofer In reply to If it only was possible.. ...

It is not time to play nicey with the terrorists. They must be beaten down.....I just cannot agree....there comes a time to fight and there is a cost....and it takes a vision that when the dust settles, peace will once again prevail.....

Collapse -

Show me anywhere in history when Terrorism has been wiped out....

by admin In reply to We tried that for 30 year ...

Show me anywhere in history when terrorism has been wiped off the earth by force and lasting peace has prevailed.

You can't. It starts at least as far back as Cain and Able and goes on yet today.

You can eliminate a specific target like Al-Qaeda but Terrorism will never be stopped. Could they stop the Terrorists that threw the tea in Boston?

You have been duped if you really believe that one. Specific Terrorists Targets can successfully be stopped by force- Terrorism on the other hand can never be stomped out.

I am not a peacenik. I will support and use force when necessary. It's not about force or nothing or force or peace- it's about choosing the appropriate target.

Collapse -

Sir, with all due respect....

by Packet Spoofer In reply to Show me anywhere in histo ...

Broadening the definition of terrorism to include the perpetrators of the boston tea party, highlights the problem between our point of view....There is no moral equivilence between terrorism and the Boston tea party...

Collapse -

Ask the British of the day...

by admin In reply to Sir, with all due respect ...

the tea party was only a symbol, that is true. But the British stood and fought for their own property at the time and we introduced guerrila warfare, cutting and running and generally disregarding the rules of war at the time.

Personally, I am glad we did. The tactics were low blows, but for a good cause. Even England is better for it now that the Monarchy is basically useless.

Terrorism is only a method and with all due respect has no morality attached to it directly. To intimidate someone into doing something can be a good thing. "Shock and Awe" for instance was meant to show overwhelming Terror . I support that. It depends on what it is used for.

What we do need to identify and stop are specific Terrorist organizations. I am not broadening the term. The term is being narrowed to garner massive support but it is misguided. Everyone wishes Terrorism was not a reality- but it is, and I believe we should continue to use it as a tool when it is appropriate and continue to bravely and honestly face our place in this world.

Collapse -

WRONG that depends on which side of the fence you are STANDING

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Sir, with all due respect ...

What you have to remember here is that the Boston Tea Party was the beginning of the end of British Rule in the Americas and it was the winner who wrote your history.

If you are to look at every battle between the rebels and the British Rulers you will find terror tactics used against the British. Exactly the same thing is happening today in Iraq where a city is under attack and the leaders have withdrawn to a safer place to begin launching their attacks again. Just like the Rabble who fought the British in what you would call "The War of Independence!"

Have a good think on that before you start raising a flag and waving it for others to follow.


Collapse -

Col...can you please explain to me...

by Packet Spoofer In reply to WRONG that depends on whi ...

When did we go to england and Bomb and behead innocent civilians...These terrorists are not the moral equivilent of the people of the american revolution...I can see where you are coming from...rising up and rebelling....but to say that flying planes into civilian filled buildings....bombing cafe's and pizzarias and busses is equivilent....that is just not true..

Collapse -


by JamesRL In reply to WRONG that depends on whi ...

While I think the analogy doesn't quite hold true, you can't dismiss it totally.

The Rebels did use tactics that were unconventional and radical for their time. Hit and run, ambush etc., were not considered civilized by European armies.

And many loyalists were driven from their homes by rebels - some were tarred and feathered, some run out on a rail, some had their places burned. Do you think its more humane to tar and feather someone than to kill them? Think about it - they didn't have burn units back then, tarring and feathering would have left a person in agonizing pain for years. Is this not the use of terror for political purposes? Isn't that what terrorism is? And while it may have been directed at adult males, it certainly negatively affected women and children as well. But of course the winner gets to write the story.

And of course there are other examples in modern history. When the area that became Isreal was run by the British, there were jewish terrorists that used bombs in public areas (King David Hotel), as well as ambushes and assasinations. But of course, the winner gets to write the story.


Collapse -

I'll be happy to explain

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to WRONG that depends on whi ...

The proper definition of terrorism is

Main Entry: ter?ror?ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter?ror?ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter?ror?is?tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Now I'll be the first to admit that durring the War of Independence the US militia didn't fly commercial jet aircraft into British Buildings but but at the same time they did not have things like this to use. The Militia fought a constant rearguard action for the first few years of the war and followed the scorched earth policy denying the British from obtaining supplies from the land. This also meant that vast numbers of fellow American civilians where forcible displaced to hinder the British advance. Also any suspected sympathizers to the British where harshly dealt with by the Militia they not only had their homes destroyed and families split up but more often than not where left with hideous scars to scare others off from offering any support to the British.

The same type of thing happened in the Transvaal durring the Boar War and was used very effectively by the Dutch farmers who in reality had no chance of standing up against the British Army so they concocted other means of fighting the British.

They used hit and run tactics and torture for gaining information from the enemy. If you where to have a close look at the methods employed by the Dutch and the Americans in their respective wars you will find them both similar.

And while the American solders didn't behead their prisoners they did line them up against a wall and shot them {I believe you call it a firing squad.} Where you are missing the point is that you seem to think that the destruction of a whole building is the only form of terror but back in the days of your War of Independence you didn't have access to this type of thing so your people used what was at hand.

If my memory serves me correctly it was durring that war where a submarine was first used in an attempt to break the blockade of a harbor. Now it may not seem like much now days but back then if you where a sailor and something came from under the water and destroyed the Boat that you where a crew member on that would be just as terrifying as seeing a jet aircraft bearing down upon you. If not more so as at that stage this had never happened previously and would be unexplainable.

Terror takes many forms and the whole idea it to strike fear into the enemy, it is even more effective when it comes unexpectedly with common items that no one would think of as being dangerous.


Collapse -

Well remember this

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to We tried that for 30 year ...

The British thought the same way and brought about over 400 years of terrorist war between Ireland and the UK.

The good old "Gun Boat Diplomacy" failed miserably in India which was split due to religious lines into two countries Pakistan and India and even then the rapid retreat beat by the British left hundreds of thousands on the wrong side of the line and left to fend for themselves mostly they where murdered.

That conflict continues today.

What is currently going on is nothing more than a Knee Jerk Reaction to something that was previously unthinkable to most US citizens and so their Government had to look as if they where doing something to keep the peace.

But what ever made them think that Iraq would be an easy battle is beyond me. All it is achieving is to unite the fanatical Religious Muslims to band together and attack their perceived main hated enemy America!

A Gulf War Veteran asked me just why did I think that it was Iraq that was next in line after the mess in Afghanistan was left virtually unattended leaving the drug lords to run vast areas of the country.

My response was that Iraq could not expect to stand against the might of the COW forces where as every other country mentioned had the ability to fight to a stalemate. But that now appears to be happening in Iraq.

The real trouble here is that American civilian's are unable to comprehend that some others in the world just might not like them all that much and that shotting the living daylights out of some place and then stopping to ask questions may prove far more counter productive than other means that are likely to work better.

Besides GWB telling you that Iraq was involved in terrorist activities what real proof has ever been offered to prove this point. Your Allie in the UK has had to admit that he was wrong and made a mistake. Unfortunately most Americans are unable to accept that a mistake has been made and what is by far worse if a definitive win doesn't happen soon you are proving to the world that you are not the super power that you think you are. If a handful of poorly organized religious fanatics are capable of bring the Mighty USA to a stand still others will see this as an opportunity to launch their own attacks on your homeland.

When the War on Terror was started most of the world was behind your actions it was only when your leader started becoming a megalomaniac that support started dropping off and is continuing to do so for your actions. I think you are going to be learning a very nasty lesson.

Incidental do not think that it is the Muslim menace who is at fault here as if you look back to what was once Yugoslavia it was the Christians who where responsible for attempting to wipe off the face of the earth the other religions in their country.


Collapse -

Needed to win: commitment, purse, and a fair chance

by DelbertPGH In reply to We tried that for 30 year ...

If you're going to take on a struggle that will cost lives and money and political resources for years, you need a good reason for the commitment. Otherwise, your country will grow tired of the sacrifice, and leaders will doubt the rationale. Remember Viet Nam? Was winning it worth a year of struggle and maybe 2,000 G.I.s? Sure, if it's easy, why not? Seven years and 58,000 lives, and still no sight of the end? Nope. We bailed.

Open-ended commitments are expensive in terms of cash. We haven't yet tried to balance our books; we've just put the whole bill for Iraq on credit. If it goes on long enough, you have to stop putting it on the tab, and start putting down cash. That means budget cuts for other worthy items. Remember, we're already running a half trillion dollar federal budget deficit, and a half trillion dollar trade deficit; our currency has dropped 25% in value in the last year; and we depend on foreigners to put their savings into our bonds, so we can keep on doing it. We could be heading for money trouble, in a big way, soon.

But also needed is a fight we can win. It's not easy turning a socialist country into a thriving capitalist society. It's not easy turning a dictatorship into a democracy. It's not easy making three mutually hostile peoples (Shiite, Kurd, and Sunni) share wealth and power cooperatively. It's not easy building political and legal traditions where none existed before. It's not easy doing all of these things in the midst of revolution, sabotage, and crime. And it's hard, above all, to turn Arab and Muslim peoples back toward the modern era, and away from the medieval and the radical and the murdering martyrdom they more and more idolize. While we occupy one of their countries and shoot them, no less.

We've got ourselves a heck of a fight. You can bet your Social Security on that. (The master strategist in the White House already has.) Hope we've got the sticking power, the money, and a fair chance to win.

Back to Community Forum
35 total posts (Page 3 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums