World Politics

[BroDeal]

There will never be a Palestinian state to the exclusion of Israel. As long as that is your ideal you will be unhappy. There has been violence on both sides to the point where those in power in Israel are not willing to put themselves at the mercy of those who have made it clear about their goals (and I do not believe they should anyway). Since this is not going to happen - ever - I figure I am going to move on. You have no interest in considering this subject from the Israeli standpoint, and I do not trust the good nature of the religious and political leaders of the Palestinians based on their stated goals and past actions.

There will never be an Israel where the Palestinians have disappeared from the face of the earth. As long as that is your ideal you will be unhappy. There has been violence on both sides to the point where those in power in Palestine are not willing to put themselves at the mercy of those who have made it clear about their goals (and I do not believe they should anyway). Since this is not going to happen - ever - I figure I am going to move on. You have no interest in considering this subject from the Palestinian standpoint, and I do not trust the good nature of the religious and political leaders of the Israelis based on their stated goals and past actions.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

you yanks need to get your man obama to agree on the ETS, why should the aussies agree to it if USA and china won't agree. Obama sending more troops over says that america have voted in another 'war ravaged hack'. We need people in government who know about the environment and the economy, why is what is doing damage to this world.

The only thing that could be done differently is to leave while telling the Afghan people that the next time Al Qaida sets off bombs in the United States we wont send an army, just a lot of radioactive missiles. We could have left Iraq under the same terms after obtaining Saddam. Of course we would have to mean it AND we would have to do it as well since there is no way Al Qaida will stop until they are all dead or captured. This means we also would have to be willing more bombings and many thousands of dead civilian Americans.

The other option (if the welfare of Americans is not important) would be to leave and ask Al Qaida for terms of surrender. Maybe they would accept, maybe not.

 

[BroDeal]

The only thing that could be done differently is to leave while telling the Afghan people that the next time Al Qaida sets off bombs in the United States we wont send an army, just a lot of radioactive missiles. We could have left Iraq under the same terms after obtaining Saddam. Of course we would have to mean it AND we would have to do it as well since there is no way Al Qaida will stop until they are all dead or captured. This means we also would have to be willing more bombings and many thousands of dead civilian Americans.

Fantasies about war crimes. Nice. How many innocent people do you plan on killing with the nukes?

 

[auscyclefan94]

The only thing that could be done differently is to leave while telling the Afghan people that the next time Al Qaida sets off bombs in the United States we wont send an army, just a lot of radioactive missiles. We could have left Iraq under the same terms after obtaining Saddam. Of course we would have to mean it AND we would have to do it as well since there is no way Al Qaida will stop until they are all dead or captured. This means we also would have to be willing more bombings and many thousands of dead civilian Americans.

The other option (if the welfare of Americans is not important) would be to leave and ask Al Qaida for terms of surrender. Maybe they would accept, maybe not.

why send 30000 more troops over?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Fantasies about war crimes. Nice. How many innocent people do you plan on killing with the nukes?

I am OK with the troops in this situation since we have not gotten Osama, however, war kills civilians and has since the beginning of time. When dealing with terrorists your choice is to surrender to the guy who has no regret in killing them - repeatedly allow your own civilians to be killed while attempting to destroy guerrillas with a conventional army (what is currently happening) - or be willing to make the commitment, as much as you would rather not, to render a consequence to those killing yours, even if there are unavoidable civilians casualties.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

why send 30000 more troops over?

Apparently we are losing with the number we have there attempting to fight a non-conventional war with conventional forces.

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Obama+orders+30%2C000+more+troops+to+Afghanistan+&NewsID=197543

 

[BroDeal]

why send 30000 more troops over?

It is a political move. Obama wants to be able to say that he gave Afghanistan one last shot. If he pulls out now he will face criticism for quitting. It is politcally easier to continue down the same path than to change direction. Since Bush screwed up the war, there is a lot of political cover to protect Obama from the fallout from failure. Plus, he might get lucky and kill Bin Laden with a drone (assuming Bin Laden is still alive).

The right thing to do is declare victory and leave. Maintain counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism assets in the country, and continue to operate special forces in Afghanistan and the surrounding countries to periodically kill members of Al Queda.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Fantasies about war crimes. Nice. How many innocent people do you plan on killing with the nukes?

I guess you did not like option two (surrender) I did not either.

 

[BroDeal]

I am OK with the troops in this situation since we have not gotten Osama, however, war kills civilians and has since the beginning of time. When dealing with terrorists your choice is to surrender to the guy who has no regret in killing them - repeatedly allow your own civilians to be killed while attempting to destroy guerrillas with a conventional army (what is currently happening) - or be willing to make the commitment, as much as you would rather not, to render a consequence to those killing yours, even if there are unavoidable civilians casualties.

How exactly does this translate into using nukes to fight a handful of ragtag terrorists?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The right thing to do is declare victory and leave. Maintain counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism assets in the country, and continue to operate special forces in Afghanistan and the surrounding countries to periodically kill members of Al Queda.

Interesting, operate behind enemy lines in terrain the enemy knows better than you (evidenced by eight years of evading our military). No special forces group like this is likely to last very long at all without gunships and troops to call in for support.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Ragtag terrorists

That thinking is buried under the Twin Towers.

 

[BroDeal]

How to operate behind enemy lines in terrain they know better than you (evidenced by eight years of evading our military). No group like this is likely to last very long at all without have gunships and troops to call in for support.

The Taliban does not equal Al Queda. They are not the same. Bush deliberately confused the two because it was a lot easier attack a government than it was to deal with the real problem, a dispersed set of hard to find people who are nearly indistinguishable from the rest of the population. Bush took the easy way out. Fantasies about an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the former Soviet states did not help.

The real problem is hard, and it involves good, old fashioned human intelligence gathering. The U.S. does not need to maintain troops in Afghanistan. They can be brought in for specific missions that come from intelligence work.

At the same time the U.S. should address the valid issues that drive Al Quaeda's oppositon to the U.S. like the Palestine issue and support of corrupt monarchies and dictatorships.

 

[BroDeal]

That thinking is buried under the Twin Towers.

If you maintain an empire then you will suffer reprisals. 9/11 buries nothing other than the notion that the U.S. can oppress people without consequences.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

At the same time the U.S. should address the valid issues that drive Al Quaeda's oppositon to the U.S. like the Palestine issue and support of corrupt monarchies and dictatorships.

What happened in Iran when they got rid of their corrupt leadership?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

If you maintain an empire then you will suffer reprisals. 9/11 buries nothing other than the notion that the U.S. can oppress people without consequences.

Iraq oppresses (still) the Kurds and the Sunni. Iran oppresses Shi'ites, Jews, Christians and Iraqis. Both oppress women. So, how does US oppression result in this situation?

 

[BroDeal]

What happened in Iran when they got rid of their corrupt leadership?

They got the country that they wanted, and they have no one to blame but themselves. When things don't work out, they will adapt until they find a form of government that works with their culture.

If the U.S. does not like their form of governement then tough luck; it's not our country.

Iraq oppresses (still) the Kurds and the Sunni. Iran oppresses Shi'ites, Jews, Christians and Iraqis. Both oppress women. So, how does US oppression result in this situation?

So what? As long as the U.S. is not backing factions or the government then it has sweet F all to with us. We cannot be blamed.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

They got the country that they wanted, and they have no one to blame but themselves. When things don't work out, they will adapt until they find a form of government that works with their culture.

If the U.S. does not like their form of governement then tough luck; it's not our country.

Except they want nuclear weapons and to destroy the Great Satan - should we allow this?

According to this thinking the Germans got the country they wanted in 1933 - it did not work out so well for them or the rest of the world.

 

[BroDeal]

Except they want nuclear weapons and to destroy the Great Satan - should we allow this?

Who says they want nuclear weapons? The same paranoid crazies who said that Iraq had WMDs? Maybe the same group of liars who said that Iraq could attack Britain with WMDs in forty-five minutes?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

They got the country that they wanted, and they have no one to blame but themselves. When things don't work out, they will adapt until they find a form of government that works with their culture.

If the U.S. does not like their form of governement then tough luck; it's not our country.



So what? As long as the U.S. is not backing factions or the government then it has sweet F all to with us. We cannot be blamed.

That kind of thinking got a a hundred million or so people killed last century. It cost the United States over half a million dead in WWI and WWII alone.

 

[BroDeal]

That kind of thinking got a a hundred million or so people killed last century. It cost the United States over half a million death in WWI and WWII alone.

Your type of thinking and its support of national empires is what got people killed last century. Your type of thiinking got hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the last decade.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Who says they want nuclear weapons? The same paranoid crazies who said that Iraq had WMDs? Maybe the same group of liars who said that Iraq could attack Britain with WMDs in forty-five minutes?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110603072.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/iran-un-criticism-prompte_n_373573.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albright

 

[BroDeal]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110603072.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/iran-un-criticism-prompte_n_373573.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albright

There is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The most they can say is that we cannot prove they are not. The IAEA has not been able to come up with any evidence that Iran's current civilian nuclear project is designed to produce nuclear weapons. Under the NPT, Iran has the right to nuclear power. The West is trying to deny them that right.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Your type of thinking and its support of national empires is what got people killed last century. Your type of thiinking got hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the last decade.

Perhaps we should just surrender as I mentioned earlier - that is all it will take.

We probably should have surrendered to the Nazi's or Japanese 50 years ago too.

 

[BroDeal]

Perhaps we should just surrender as I mentioned earlier - that is all it will take.

We probably should have surrendered to the Nazi's or Japanese 50 years ago too.

LOL. So now a handful of Al Queda are the Nazis, and there are only two possible choices, massive occupation of other countries' civilian populations or surrender. I guess I left out your third option: Nuking large numbers of civilians because a few terrorists may have come from the area.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

LOL. So now a handful of Al Queda are the Nazis, and there are only two possible choices, massive occupation of other countries' civilian populations or surrender. I guess I left out your third option: Nuking large numbers of civilians because a few terrorists may have come from the area.

I was talking about us surrendering to the Nazi's since WWII killed so many as a result of "Empire Building"

Today, the terrorists are not going to stop attacking unless they are dead - if you are not going to fight to win, the choices left are to die (not a favorite of mine) or surrender (again, not a big fan).

BTW - the Nazi's hated the Jews, started out small, and they did not have access to nuclear weapons - Al Qaida might be better armed in the near future.