U.S. air strikes in Somalia

RobertDyck · 2007-01-11 08:29:27

Helicopter gunships launched fresh attacks Tuesday against suspected al-Qaeda members in southern Somalia, a Somali official said, as the Pentagon confirmed at least one U.S. air strike the previous day.
...
Witnesses said 31 civilians, including two newlyweds, were killed in the helicopter assault. A Somali Defence Ministry official identified the helicopters as American.

Globe and Mail: U.S. forces pummel al-Qaeda targets in Somalia

The strikes appear to mark a very public escalation of U.S. military involvement, previously limited to tacit support of Ethiopia's December invasion of Somalia. It also underscores the willingness of U.S. President George W. Bush to wage war wherever a possible terrorist emerges.

Globe and Mail: No top terrorist killed in U.S. strike on Somalia: official

None of the top three suspected terrorists in Somalia were killed in a U.S. air strike this week, but Somalis with close ties to al-Qaeda were slain, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.
A day earlier, a Somali official had said a U.S. intelligence report had referred to the death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed — one of the three senior al-Qaeda members believed responsible for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa.

How many more people will be killed in this so called "War on Terrorism"? U.S. officials claim fewer civilians were killed than witnesses report, but the question is not whether but how many. And the 3 individuals targeted were not killed. This is what happens when you use an air strike, civilians get killed and the criminals get away. Even if ground troops were to kill people, mistakes are made in the heat of battle. That's why you need police to arrest the criminals and bring them to trial. In a war-torn country like Somalia, soldiers have to function as those police. The only sane course of action is to coordinate an operation with local officials for an arrest operation.

How many more countries will be invaded by U.S. troops? I understand the American people elected a Democrat congress on a mandate of 4 issues, one of which was to end the war in Iraq. Sending more troops into Iraq is a violation of that; this invasion of Somalia is worse.

I remember when the Soviet Union pulled shit like this, invading other countries. The west considered that horrible then, why does George W. and his cronies think it's acceptable for the U.S. now?

SpaceNut · 2007-01-11 09:01:34

A couple of items in the news from a couple of days ago.

Somali president arrives in capital for first time in 40 years while his forces and Ethiopian troops laid siege to an Islamic movement's last military foothold.

President Abdullahi Yusuf took office in 2004 but had not set foot in Mogadishu for 40 years and has spent much of his time as Somalia's leader outside the country because he considered the capital unsafe.

and the other is Official: U.S. airstrikes in Somalia targets embassy bombers

Two U.S. airstrikes in Somalia killed large numbers of Islamic extremists, government officials and witnesses said Tuesday. The targets were suspects in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998.
President Abdullahi Yusuf told journalists in the capital, Mogadishu, that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." Monday, Yusuf had entered the restive capital for the first time since his election.
Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed told The Associated Press the U.S. had "our full support for the attacks."

Looking at the first item I can only sermize that the US was given the go ahead for the strikes but I agree it seems that the criminals are the ones that always seem to get away...

John Creighton · 2007-01-11 23:33:36

Robert, the first strikes were by Ethiopia against Somalia. I started a topic about that here:

http://canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topi … IC_ID=8480

I guess the Ethiopian’s weren’t doing a good enough job. Anyway, the Somalia Islamic courts I don’t think are that nice anyway. I think I heard in some area’s you can be executed if you don’t pray five times a day. That is not to say the US should be launching the air strikes. I am mealy pointing out who you are defending.

Pray 5 Times a Day or Lose your Head
http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/ … 22&#132609

Somalia Town Threatens to Behead People Who Don't Pray 5 Times Daily
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html

RobertDyck · 2007-01-12 07:35:30

It is not a matter of "for us or against us". That's a very primitive attitude. A president with authority over a military as powerful as the U.S. cannot behave as a Neanderthal. I am not defending any particular regime in Somalia; what I'm saying is you don't send in troops to shoot people. Attempting to use military force to enforce your view of how they should run things within their own borders simply demonstrates the U.S. is nothing more than another military dictatorship.

Last week a friend took me to a movie called "Blood Diamonds". It was brutal, not a movie I wanted to see. In one scene a group of soldiers came into a village riding on Range Rovers and pickup trucks and carrying assault rifles. They killed any villager who resisted. Those who didn't resist were captured, if they were submissive enough they were sent to mine the streams with shovels and baskets. They "panned" river mud for diamonds. Those who weren't submissive enough had their right hand cut off half way up the forearm. Sending an AC130 gunship to shoot a village reminds me of that; these people were just minding their own business when an armed bunch of soldiers arrived to shoot them.

Once I heard a woman say that to evaluate a guy, look at his friends. A guy is in the process of become what his friends are. On another occasion a financial adviser said you should hang out with rich people because it rubs off. The lesson in both cases is you learn to emulate the people you associate with. The U.S. government has been obsessing over third world countries so long that their government has learned to behave as a third world country. Rather than being any sort of "leader of the free world", the U.S. has allowed itself to fall to the level of a banana republic. American founding fathers used to read works by people like Plato and Democritus, they studied the legal system of ancient Rome. Now they're studying Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and becoming them.

Palomar · 2007-01-12 07:59:06

Rather than being any sort of "leader of the free world", the U.S. has allowed itself to fall to the level of a banana republic. American founding fathers used to read works by people like Plato and Democritus, they studied the legal system of ancient Rome. Now they're studying Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and becoming them.

I find this excessive, Robert. You're smarter than this.

The Democrats won big time in the last election. They're seeking to reverse a bad course, to fix/resolve issues. The US public elected Democrats, thereby overthrowing a lot of Republicans.

Doesn't that give you hope? Light at the end of the tunnel so to speak? A positive outcome?

Can we give a bit of credit? All is not lost.

And we both know Pres. Bush isn't going to be in office forever.

Every entity (human, nation, whatever) goes through dark periods. Unfortunately we've been through one. 4 years from now the situation could be entirely different (here's hoping).

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-12 08:51:18

Rather than being any sort of "leader of the free world", the U.S. has allowed itself to fall to the level of a banana republic. American founding fathers used to read works by people like Plato and Democritus, they studied the legal system of ancient Rome. Now they're studying Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and becoming them.
I find this excessive, Robert. You're smarter than this.
The Democrats won big time in the last election. They're seeking to reverse a bad course, to fix/resolve issues. The US public elected Democrats, thereby overthrowing a lot of Republicans.
Doesn't that give you hope? Light at the end of the tunnel so to speak? A positive outcome?
Can we give a bit of credit? All is not lost.
And we both know Pres. Bush isn't going to be in office forever.
Every entity (human, nation, whatever) goes through dark periods. Unfortunately we've been through one. 4 years from now the situation could be entirely different (here's hoping).

I heard that Al Qaeda celebrated the Democrats elections to Congress, and the first Muslim American to swear on the Qoran upon taking the oath of office was also a Democrat, I'd say the terrorists are the ones who see light at the end of the tunnel with this election victory. Meanwhile in the wake of this election Victory, Hugo Chavez decides to assume dictatorial powers in Venuzualia. I guess with Democrats in power, he calculates that the US will do nothing to stop him from forming a mini-Soviet Block in the Western Hemisphere. Iran's emboldened already, is developing nuclear weapons and its waiting for its birthday present of Iraq from the Congressional Democrats, probably at the end of this year when money for Iraq operations runs out. I just wonder at the timing of the Bush administration when he waited with his new plan for Iraq to ask the Democrats for money rather than the Republicans while they are still in power.

Hugo Chavez may be right, we may have to invade his country because he will make it necessary. We can't have some new dictator threatening our freedoms in the Western Hemisphere. Perhaps Brazil should annex it, since by voting for Hugo, the Venuzualians have demonstrated that they don't want to run their own country.

clark · 2007-01-12 09:24:31

Who your friends are determine who you will become?
Citing a movie to make a point (and a bad movie at that)?
If you don't send in troops to shoot people, why give them guns?

Oh, and Tom is still a monkey.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-12 11:52:03

Who your friends are determine who you will become?
Citing a movie to make a point (and a bad movie at that)?

You seem a little disoriented there. I wasn't talking about movies.

If you don't send in troops to shoot people, why give them guns?

I wasn't talking about the US Arming the Brazilians to go invade Venuzualia. Brazil already has an Army, and its not such a basketcase that it needs assistance from us in order to have one. Chavez is spreading revolution in South America, since the Venusualian people elected him and reelected him, I have doubts about whether they are capable of having a democracy, therefore I wonder whether Venuzalia should exist since all it seems to be is a platform for dictators to assume power and to use it oil wealth. I think Brazil is more deserving than some dictator. Brazil is a more responsible country and its people take their responsibility of choosing their government seriously rather than electing trouble makers who try to destabilize the region.

Oh, and Tom is still a monkey.

If I was a monkey, I'd be typing something more like this:
dbfkdggkcf djufndhdjkfbskfghsjkfghsn dhdbgfhjdgdhvbgsdgqklxopfhskv

clark · 2007-01-12 13:01:01

You seem a little stupid, I wasn't reffering to anything you posted.

monkey monkey monkey.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-12 19:59:37

Rather than being any sort of "leader of the free world", the U.S. has allowed itself to fall to the level of a banana republic. American founding fathers used to read works by people like Plato and Democritus, they studied the legal system of ancient Rome. Now they're studying Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and becoming them.
I find this excessive, Robert. You're smarter than this.
The Democrats won big time in the last election. They're seeking to reverse a bad course, to fix/resolve issues. The US public elected Democrats, thereby overthrowing a lot of Republicans.
Doesn't that give you hope? Light at the end of the tunnel so to speak? A positive outcome?
Can we give a bit of credit? All is not lost.
And we both know Pres. Bush isn't going to be in office forever.
Every entity (human, nation, whatever) goes through dark periods. Unfortunately we've been through one. 4 years from now the situation could be entirely different (here's hoping).

True, I should separate "U.S." from Republican. It is my hope that the Democrat congress will reign-in President Bush. Actually, part of the reason for being excessive is the hope I can goad some congressional aid reading this to do so. The presidential election is the first Tuesday of November, 2008; swearing in the end of January 2009. That's 2 years from now; I'm really hoping this situation will improve. In the mean time, the Republican president is earning the U.S. a lot of ill will internationally.

Today's Winnipeg newspaper had pictures of the new Prowler UAV based out of Grand Forks, North Dakota. They're proceeding with arming the Canada-US border. (Shudder)

John Creighton · 2007-01-12 20:00:25

I’m curious Robert. Were you also against Clinton sending cruise missiles into a country to try and get Osama Bin Laden in response to an embassy bombing?

RobertDyck · 2007-01-12 23:34:22

I’m curious Robert. Were you also against Clinton sending cruise missiles into a country to try and get Osama Bin Laden in response to an embassy bombing?

Yes. The only difference between a cruise missile and a truck bomb is price. Using terrorist tactics against terrorists simply justifies their activity. To quote the philospher Friedrich Nietzsche, "that which does not kill you will only make you stronger". A cruise missile attack makes those killed into martyrs, it will be used to recruit those pissed off by American military actions in their countries. The terrorist organization will see this as an escalation; they will mount an even larger, more dramatic terrorist attack. Oh wait! They did. Told you so.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-13 02:14:27

I’m curious Robert. Were you also against Clinton sending cruise missiles into a country to try and get Osama Bin Laden in response to an embassy bombing?
Yes. The only difference between a cruise missile and a truck bomb is price. Using terrorist tactics against terrorists simply justifies their activity. To quote the philospher Friedrich Nietzsche, "that which does not kill you will only make you stronger". A cruise missile attack makes those killed into martyrs, it will be used to recruit those pissed off by American military actions in their countries. The terrorist organization will see this as an escalation; they will mount an even larger, more dramatic terrorist attack. Oh wait! They did. Told you so.

Your arguments are designed to make all resistance to the enemy seem futile. If you fight them, the enemy only grows more numerous and stronger. Just like the Nazis only grew bigger and more powerful when we fought them and they withered away when we showed them no resistance. Why don't we just hand over all our tribute to them and get it over with? Might as well if you think fighting the enemy only makes him stronger and more powerful, since we can't win as you say, we might as well surrender and submit, starting with your children I suppose. Better get ready to send them to those Madrassas I think. Millions for tribute, not a penny for defense! I wonder what John F. Kennedy would think of the modern Liberal, always trying to weasel and find an excuse not to fight the enemy. Another liberal once said it best, "Every once in a while the tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants!" That old liberal tradition of fighting for one's liberty is lost among modern liberals of today, they are ready to bow to any king or tyrant that wishes to conquer us, just so long as they don't have to fight.

Look at it this way, we only lost 3000 soldiers in this entire war, the Media won't report on how many enemy combatants were killed. I think the Media just doesn't want us to win. You and all the rest of them are only focused on President George Bush, you care about nothing else in the World except making George Bush a failure, so its anything you and the liberals and the Media can do to sabotage the war and make us lose, then you will say that the superior enemy defeated us and you had nothing to do with it.

512 Commanders-in-Chiefs are not good at winning a war, they are only good at losing one, and so the Democrats follow the strategy of "lose to win". I tell you now, if we lose the War, it will be because the Democrats have cut off funds, not because of anything the Insurgents and terrorists have done, it will be because they have too many allies in teh Democratic Party in Congress for us to possibly prevail. If and when we lose this War, I will blame the Democrats, and just watch as they freeze the funds to NASA, so it will be forced to cut science programs so it can continue to operate the Shuttle and get ready to send people to Mars, just you watch. if it comes to the Shuttle or Ares, the Democrats will pick the Shuttle every time, because it does nothing spectacular while employing alot of people.

Democrats just love humilation and defeat, the love to roll around in it, in fact the only things they love to win are elections, that puts them in charge so they can lose everything else, just you watch. I'm in "I told you so" mode.

Palomar · 2007-01-13 07:31:31

Robert wrote: Today's Winnipeg newspaper had pictures of the new Prowler UAV based out of Grand Forks, North Dakota. They're proceeding with arming the Canada-US border. (Shudder)

Yes, I noticed a similar headline. I am stymied as to why there is a "need" to "secure" the northern border in that fashion. Strict controls at major border crossings only should suffice, no?

I'm only 50 miles from Mexico [for the past 15 years], and thus a long way from Canada [though was born/raised/lived in Iowa & Nebraska until 1992]...but I've never known any trouble coming out of Canada with the exception of 2 or 3 suspected terrorists trying to cross over into the U.S. All the 9/11 terrorists were IN the U.S. on visas (some expired) for years, we're still allowing Mid-East immigrants in.

Canada is so laid-back and calm compared to the U.S. Being hypervigilant/suspicious about Canada seems patently absurd.

And it's home to Hayden Christensen and William Shatner...heck, I love Canada. Lol!

Rxke · 2007-01-13 07:38:36

monkey monkey monkey.

I always knew, somewhere deep down inside, that the political discussions here were just monkeys throwing poo at eachother.

And no, I'm not moderating this section, you can effing sort it out yourselves, I consider free chat being too much of a diversion form New Mars' errrr... core business to bother. At all.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-13 13:55:15

Robert wrote: Today's Winnipeg newspaper had pictures of the new Prowler UAV based out of Grand Forks, North Dakota. They're proceeding with arming the Canada-US border. (Shudder)
Yes, I noticed a similar headline. I am stymied as to why there is a "need" to "secure" the northern border in that fashion. Strict controls at major border crossings only should suffice, no?
I'm only 50 miles from Mexico [for the past 15 years], and thus a long way from Canada [though was born/raised/lived in Iowa & Nebraska until 1992]...but I've never known any trouble coming out of Canada with the exception of 2 or 3 suspected terrorists trying to cross over into the U.S. All the 9/11 terrorists were IN the U.S. on visas (some expired) for years, we're still allowing Mid-East immigrants in.
Canada is so laid-back and calm compared to the U.S. Being hypervigilant/suspicious about Canada seems patently absurd.
And it's home to Hayden Christensen and William Shatner...heck, I love Canada. Lol!

It is the price we pay for being a Superpower. Canada is just a staging area for terrorists, they aren't going to target Canadians too much. Why should they, they want to preserve their beach head for making attacks on the US, Canada's laid back attitude suits them just fine for this, they wouldn't want to do anything to spoil it, like explode a car bomb in Ottawa for instance. The USA is the one that's bothering them the most, the one that's giving aid to Israel and meddling in Middle East Affairs, and it has the big bulleye on its back. Canada benefits from this, but it doesn't want to rock the boat and get too many Arabs mad at it, letting the US take all the hits, at least that's the way it seems to go down. The price Canadians pay for this of course is a little more difficulty in getting into the US. If Canada was as vigilent as we are and we were to pool our resources into guarding and screening those who come into our areas, then I don't see any reason to pay any special attention to the US/Canada border.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-13 15:31:05

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration. You're new here, you haven't read all my posts. Let me summarize. The correct, sane way to deal with criminals is treat them as criminals. Treat a crime as a crime. Stop attempting this "war on terrorism"; terrorism cannot be stopped by war. It can be stopped by treating it as a crime. I once saw on TV news a U.S. congressman say they tried to treat it as a crime, but that didn't work so they're going to war. That statement is wrong, they never did treat it as a crime, they always treated it as war. The war has never worked and never will work. Terrorists don't have a finite territory with limited resources, rather they're non-geographic and can recruit personnel and resources from anywhere in the world. Consequently all your resources are their resources. A war of attrition will never work in that environment.

I have pointed out the Canadian response to terrorism. In October 1970 the Front de Libération du Québec, known as the FLQ, mounted a terrorist attack. That is known to historians as the October crisis, but most people call it the FLQ crisis. They kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross, and the Québec labour minister Pierre Laporte. The kidnappers demanded that the FLQ manifesto be read over the media and that members of the FLQ who were in custody or in prison be released. The authorities allowed the manifesto to be read on Radio Canada but balked at releasing detainees. The cell that had taken Cross released him in exchange for safe passage to Cuba, but Laporte was murdered by leaders of the other cell. Canada would not normally give anything to terrorists, but we take responsibility for foreign diplomats very seriously. Québec ministers took the murder of one of their own as a direct threat to their lives; they insisted the federal government send in the military. The federal government invoked the War Measures Act. Solders were posted on streets to secure peace, and it gave police the right to detain any individual for questioning for up to 30 days without laying charges. No evidence, no charges, anyone anywhere anytime. The citizens of Québec felt that was excessive, but it worked. The terrorists were rooted out and the terrorist threat was eliminated once and for all. Those not involved directly with criminal activity were set free, those who were involved in any way were convicted. Remember, helping to plan a criminal act constitutes conspiracy. Being a member of the FLQ was not itself a crime, but anyone involved in any way with any criminal act went to jail. Citizens of Québec insisted the detention for questioning stop, instead Parliament passed an "Emergency Powers Temporary Measures" act that restricted detention for questioning to 7 days. This was passed before 30 days from invoking the War Measures Act, so no one had been detained for the full 30 days. The "Emergency Powers Temporary Measures" act expired 6 months after it came into effect. However, those 6 months weren't necessary; the last terrorist not sent to Cuba was arrested just 85 days after the first terrorist act.

Note the time frame: 85 days after the first terrorist act it was all over. Canada's response was fast, firm, and effective. And no one was killed by military or police. After 9/11 it was 90 days before George W. Bush admitted before camera that he knew who had committed the act. However, a couple years ago I saw a documentary on a PBS program called Nova that included video coverage by reports on Air Force One. George W. had been on a political junket, there were reporters on the plane. They were still on the plane when it was redirected to an air force base in Nebraska. The Nova documentary included video of George W. in a video conference with military intelligence who informed him al-Qaeda was responsible. So just 10 hours after the attack George W. knew al-Qaeda did it, but he didn't take action and didn't even admit to the public he knew who did it for another 90 days. George W. wanted to invade Iraq, but advisers wanted to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The rest is history; the point is George W.'s response was slow, weak, and ineffective.

When first going after Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand over al-Qaeda. The only condition is they wanted to see the evidence that al-Qaeda was guilty. A reasonable request; the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time. However George W. showed the evidence to the UK, France, Australia, every one except the one government that mattered. The sane action would be to first remove any intelligence operatives who would be compromised by the evidence, then show it to the government of Afghanistan. If they still refused, then invade. However, the Taliban said they would hand over al-Qaeda if they saw that evidence. Would they have? We'll never know now. Even if they didn't, treating the government of Afghanistan with respect would have gained support from other Arab countries. Saudi Arabia and Syria have intelligence on the Arab neighbours, they could have pointed out where al-Qaeda was. Treating the Taliban this way lost that support. Those two countries are helping somewhat now, but al-Qaeda has dispersed so they don't know where members al-Qaeda are any more.

After 9/11, NATO unanimously invoked the treaty article that says if one country is attacked all others must come to its defence. It was unanimous and the only time in NATO history that clause was invoked. Rather than accepting NATO's help, George W. said he would assemble his own coalition. Europe had been dominated by the U.S. for years, so they thought this demonstrated to the U.S. that they needed Europe as much as Europe need them. Refusing NATO's help was seen as an insult. At first France and Germany refused to participate in the war because of that insult. However, in the end France did send it's one aircraft carrier to participate in the invasion of Afghanistan. The current operation in Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned NATO operation; it's a peacekeeping operation, not war against the Taliban.

When George W. wanted to invade Iraq, he tried to get UN support. He claimed there were weapons of mass destruction, and made a strong case with the Security Council. The UN Security Council not only refused, but specifically forbade the U.S. from invading. When the U.S. general said the U.S. would go in anyway, the president of the Security Council warned the UN may take measures to stop the them. This is very important and I don't think you realize just how dangerous that was. The UN threatened to go to war against the United States if the U.S. invaded Iraq. The U.S. may have the largest, most powerful military of any single nation in the world, but can't face the entire assembled might of all other countries combined. However, luckily the Security Council decided they did not want to do that. After all, although invading Iraq was morally wrong, who wants to defend Saddam Hussein?

Before the invasion every occurred, I said the U.S. could easily overpower the Iraq military, but keeping holding it is another question. U.S. officials actually believed the Iraqi people would welcome a U.S. military invasion. I pointed out on this message board that many Iraqis supported Saddam specifically because he kept the U.S. out. If the U.S. went in, those citizens would defend their country. What happened is many Iraqi civilians did like the U.S. invasion, but they expect U.S. troops to get out as soon as Saddam was gone. They did not expect or approve of continued U.S. occupation. I said it didn't matter how the new government of Iraq was formed, the fact that U.S. military was present would be seen as evidence that the new government was a puppet of Washington. It doesn't matter if that's true or not, it will be seen by Iraqis that way. The result will be civil war; Iraqi civilians would attack their own new government. The civil war would not stop until the government was gone, and the rebels could form a new government with no involvement in any way by any American or any foreigner of any sort. However, once civil war starts the various factions will fight against each other. The civil war will not be a simple unified opposition to a foreign installed government; rather it will be a free-for-all with every faction fighting against each other. The result will be chaos. I said all this would happen before the U.S. military ever went in; now it has happened. I had expected no significant civil war until after U.S. troops were out, but they didn't wait that long; the civil war is going on now.

Meanwhile the U.S. is threatening to invade Iran, North Korea, mounted attacks into Syria, and now Somalia. This reminds me of an elementary school boy who is pissed off at being punched in the nose, so lashes out at everyone. Adults know you don't do that, you take justice specifically to the one who attacked you. And don't seek revenge, seek justice. There is a difference.

Before George W. invaded Iraq there weren't any terrorists there. There are now. If security is the goal, invading Iraq has reduced U.S. security by creating an training ground for terrorists. Plenty of practice targets have been provided; practice targets called American army soldiers. Occupation of Iraq creates a recruiting excuse, it serves to recruit more terrorists from all Arab countries.

Al-Qaeda wants to convert the Arab world to fundamentalist Islam. Iraq was the only secular government in the Arab world. Osama bin Laden had offered the services of al-Qaeda to participate in the Persian Gulf War against Iraq in 1991. Coalition forces refused, but it demonstrates Iraq is an enemy of al-Qaeda, not an ally. After 9/11, by invading Iraq this means al-Qaeda's greatest enemy is now attacking their second greatest enemy. There's no way al-Qaeda could afford the kind of military strength that the U.S. mounted against Iraq. The U.S. has done a great service to al-Qaeda by destroying Iraq. They're so way they will distract the U.S. by mounting another attack on U.S. soil as long as the U.S. is doing work for them. And while the U.S. military is distracted by Iraq, they aren't attacking al-Qaeda.

Will the attack on Somalia threaten al-Qaeda? No, it's small potatoes compared to 9/11 or Iraq. Besides, all 3 al-Qaeda leaders got away alive. The attack only serves to piss-off Somali civilians and serves as another piece of recruitment propaganda in all Arab countries.

Terrorists always have very limited resources. One thing they try to do is trick their opponent into a reaction that causes more damage than anything they could do directly. The Patriot Act is that reaction. The Patriot Act has destroyed the freedoms that Americans lived by and took for granted. Legislators should have realized that terrorists would try to trick them into passing such a thing. The "Emergency Powers Temporary Measures" in Canada only permitted the police the right to detain for questioning without probable cause for up to 7 days, and it expired after 6 months. The Patriot Act goes way beyond that, expired after 3 years, and the damn fools renewed most of it. By passing the Patriot Act they have acted on behalf of the terrorists.

Some unscrupulous politicians are out for power at any cost. They attempt to exaggerate any emergency to create justification to revoke civil liberties. The actions in the U.S. have done exactly that. The real terrorist threat could have been taken out in a matter of months, but it has been perpetuated for over 5 years now to create justification for dictatorial authority of the federal government. The laws of the U.S. were modelled on ancient Rome. Rome started as a republic ruled by a senate. It slowly became a military dictator ruled by a Caesar. The title Caesar was supposed to be an administrative leader where the senate has more authority. The same is happening in the U.S., the President is becoming Caesar, and authority of congress is being co-opted by the President. Those congressmen who think they can gain power as well are complicit with this.

The ballistic missile defence system cost a hell of a lot of money. Tests showed only 1 out of 3 hit their target. Initially there were planning to install 10 missiles in Alaska. That could only intercept 3 incoming missiles. Russia had 8000 nuclear warheads before the reductions started, most of them on missiles. I don't know how many they have now, but it could easily overwhelm that defence system. China as 12 missiles, so who is the defence system to protect against? North Korea has been developing a two stage ballistic missile, and a nuclear bomb. Tests showed both don't work very well, they're nuclear bomb fizzled with very little power. The missile also failed and had to be self-destructed. However, they could conceivably build a pair of nuclear armed missiles aimed at the U.S. But if they used one, the U.S. would respond by saturation bombing their country with strategic thermo-nuclear bombs. All you have to do is say that and they can't ever use their weapon. So what is it for? If the U.S. invaded North Korea it would be even easier than Iraq. The execution of Saddam Hussein demonstrated what happens to the leader of a country the U.S. doesn't like, so if their country fell the leaders would have nothing to loose. So the only use of this weapon is to retaliate upon loosing. The only use for the ballistic missile defence system is to stop that retaliation. So the ballistic missile defence system is part of a first strike against North Korea. Condoleezza Rice has said the U.S. has no intention of mounting a first strike, but keeps demanding North Korea stop their nuclear reactor program. Design, development, and construction of the first 10 defence missiles cost $80 billion. In the 1990s the cost for a Mars Direct mission to Mars was estimated by NASA's budget guys to cost $20 billion for the first mission plus $2 billion per mission after that. There has been some inflation since then and NASA projects tend to overrun their budget so let's say $40 billion today. That means the missile defence system cost twice the price of a manned mission to Mars. Furthermore they deployed 10 more defence missiles in Alaska, and 20 in California. The sheer cost of all this is horrifying, and there really aren't any spin-offs to the commercial economy. North Korea reminds me of the mouse that roared.

Iran's nuclear program is equally unimpressive. Europe is dealing with Iran, there's nothing positive the U.S. can contribute. The best thing the U.S. can do with Iran is stay out of it, let Europe handle them.

A large issue here is the appropriate use of intervention throughout the world. Many third world countries deliberately played off the Soviet Union against the United States to ensure neither had significant impact on their country. Now that the Soviet Union is no more, the United States is the only country attempting to be a superpower. Those counties who insist of independence are now left with a problem, how to ensure the United States does not rule them. Since they can't use the Soviet Union to limit the United States any more, they are left with direct confrontation. This is the source of many of the problems. One group of misguided Islamic fundamentalists chose direct military confrontation. The military tactic that a small weak organization can use to defeat a large, strong, well armed one is terrorism. They are attempting to eliminate U.S. influence in their part of the world. Some government types in the U.S. know this and want to demonstrate they can assert control. This has resulted in military conflict. But stop and look at what your own government is fighting for. It isn't peace or security, it isn't safety or terrorism; rather it's the right to mount covert military actions to control foreign countries. That can only result in an empire that conquers and absorbs the world, or loosing the conflict. Does the U.S. really want to be a military dictatorship that conquers and subjugates the world by military force? If so you can't be a free, democratic country. This is a fundamental question the U.S. has to ask itself: do you want to be free and democratic? If so you have to stop engaging in actions to control other countries. Be a leader of freedom, not a superpower. Doing so will eliminate the cause that al-Qaeda is fighting for. Does that mean loosing? Not really, it means you have stopped a force within the United States that has violated its core values.

Those who committed the terrorist acts are criminals who killed thousands of people; they have to answer for that. The sane course of action is to root out al-Qaeda and bring its members to trial. I have to emphasize trial. It is a crime; military action is revenge, court trial and sentencing is justice. Revenge results in a cycle: those who you seek revenge upon will be offended and seek revenge upon you, then you seek revenge for their action, and they seek revenge for yours, etc, etc. Justice puts an end to the cycle, but you have to capture the accused alive to bring them to trial.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-13 15:36:05

It is the price we pay for being a Superpower. Canada is just a staging area for terrorists

Terrorists do not come from Canada. The terrorist of 9/11 either lived within the U.S. for year, or entered directly from overseas. It is just a conventient scam to blame Canada whenever something goes wrong. They couldn't possible admit that its due to their own actions.

Palomar · 2007-01-13 15:42:22

I'm still trying to figure out how some Middle-Eastern-born Arabic (*) U.S. visa [expired] holder, who only wanted to learn how to fly a plane horizontally (didn't want to learn takeoff, landing or anything else), DIDN'T raise any red flags in the minds of the morons giving flying lessons...

...until after 9/11.

Terrorists can come into Canada and down into the U.S. But of course they can -- and do -- also come through our front door. All the 9/11 hijackers were welcomed into the U.S. by us!

I can't condone "arming" the northern border for a couple of reasons (one being our Canadian friends don't deserve the insult). Tighter controls at the major points of entry should be enough.

(*) Most of whom hate Israel and us for supporting Israel

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-14 10:13:54

Quite a book here that you've written, and almost impossible to respond to the whole thing without spending a whole day on it. So therefore I have to respond to some choice parts even though I've taken the time to read the whole thing:

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration. You're new here, you haven't read all my posts. Let me summarize. The correct, sane way to deal with criminals is treat them as criminals. Treat a crime as a crime. Stop attempting this "war on terrorism"; terrorism cannot be stopped by war. It can be stopped by treating it as a crime.

When criminals take over a whole country as in Afghanistan, they cease to be criminals and become an Enemy. But if I take your argument and it is only criminals that we are fighting, then how can we allow the Armed Forces of the furemost Superpower in the World to be defeated by a band of Criminals? I say allow because it looks like the US Congress is going to allow this band of criminals to defeat our armed forces by withoulding funds from them for this operation in fighting them, this means our soldiers are going to run out of munitions, food, and that they are not going to get paid as they fight this band of criminals, so therefore this band of criminals wins and the US Armed Forces look weak and to satisfy the Democrats political cravings to defeat George W. Bush.

I once saw on TV news a U.S. congressman say they tried to treat it as a crime, but that didn't work so they're going to war. That statement is wrong, they never did treat it as a crime, they always treated it as war. The war has never worked and never will work. Terrorists don't have a finite territory with limited resources, rather they're non-geographic and can recruit personnel and resources from anywhere in the world. Consequently all your resources are their resources. A war of attrition will never work in that environment.

Obviously the terrorists operating in other people's countries are breaking the law and are therefore criminals, but the nations sponsoring them are the Enemy. There is a bit of fuzzy logic here, if we mechanically prosecute these terrorists, no matter the scale of their operations then at some point the scale can overwhelm the courts and it becomes a national security matter instead. Due process is overly long and not designed to fight an enemy.

What if we were to treat the Confederates during the Civil War as criminals instead of enemy soldiers? We could send the Keystone cops out after the Confederate Army in Gettysburg, Pennsyvania instead of Mead's Army, what do you suppose would happen if we did that? The Confederate Soldiers are after all US citizens, so therefore the US Constitution applies to them, they cannot be arrested and kept in confinement without a trial or access to Lawyers. If we acted as robotic policemen and treated the Southern Rebellion as a series of crimes such as murder, arson, illegal militias, destruction and theft of Federal government property etc and tried to push that through the courts, we would have lost the War, but you seem more concerned about process rather than results. So long as we mechnically do what the Constitution says were supposed to do, the outcome of the War doesn't matter, we can lose all knowing that we did our duty according to the book.

Some unscrupulous politicians are out for power at any cost. They attempt to exaggerate any emergency to create justification to revoke civil liberties. The actions in the U.S. have done exactly that. The real terrorist threat could have been taken out in a matter of months, but it has been perpetuated for over 5 years now to create justification for dictatorial authority of the federal government. The laws of the U.S. were modelled on ancient Rome. Rome started as a republic ruled by a senate. It slowly became a military dictator ruled by a Caesar. The title Caesar was supposed to be an administrative leader where the senate has more authority. The same is happening in the U.S., the President is becoming Caesar, and authority of congress is being co-opted by the President. Those congressmen who think they can gain power as well are complicit with this.

There are some unscrupulous politicians that don't care about their country enough to wish that it wins its foreign wars with an enemy, they care only about gaining some political office and not about solving the problems of America. They figure that if the US suffers some major defeat to an inferior enemy, then there will still be enough left over of America for them to gain that office and defeat rivals in the next election. The Democrats have some influence in Congress, but they also want the White House, and one clear path to the White House as they see it is to make sure that the United States loses the War. George W. Bush wants an additional 20,000 troops sent to Iraq, but the Democrats in Congress aren't going to give them that flexibility, they want to "hog tie" him and drag him and the whole country down to defeat by a band of criminals, then they will say that as Commander in Chief it was George Bush's responsibilty to fight the War and he lost, thus he was an incompetant president and by extention all Republicans are incompetant. Of course by cutting off funds Congress wouldn't let the President be Commander in Chief, if they do that, then Congress takes responsibility for the outcome of the War, and if they lose, they will be blamed for it.

The ballistic missile defence system cost a hell of a lot of money. Tests showed only 1 out of 3 hit their target. Initially there were planning to install 10 missiles in Alaska. That could only intercept 3 incoming missiles. Russia had 8000 nuclear warheads before the reductions started, most of them on missiles. I don't know how many they have now, but it could easily overwhelm that defence system. China as 12 missiles, so who is the defence system to protect against? North Korea has been developing a two stage ballistic missile, and a nuclear bomb. Tests showed both don't work very well, they're nuclear bomb fizzled with very little power. The missile also failed and had to be self-destructed. However, they could conceivably build a pair of nuclear armed missiles aimed at the U.S. But if they used one, the U.S. would respond by saturation bombing their country with strategic thermo-nuclear bombs. All you have to do is say that and they can't ever use their weapon. So what is it for? If the U.S. invaded North Korea it would be even easier than Iraq. The execution of Saddam Hussein demonstrated what happens to the leader of a country the U.S. doesn't like, so if their country fell the leaders would have nothing to loose. So the only use of this weapon is to retaliate upon loosing. The only use for the ballistic missile defence system is to stop that retaliation. So the ballistic missile defence system is part of a first strike against North Korea. Condoleezza Rice has said the U.S. has no intention of mounting a first strike, but keeps demanding North Korea stop their nuclear reactor program. Design, development, and construction of the first 10 defence missiles cost $80 billion. In the 1990s the cost for a Mars Direct mission to Mars was estimated by NASA's budget guys to cost $20 billion for the first mission plus $2 billion per mission after that. There has been some inflation since then and NASA projects tend to overrun their budget so let's say $40 billion today. That means the missile defence system cost twice the price of a manned mission to Mars. Furthermore they deployed 10 more defence missiles in Alaska, and 20 in California. The sheer cost of all this is horrifying, and there really aren't any spin-offs to the commercial economy. North Korea reminds me of the mouse that roared.

The funny thing is that the ABM system would be an argument in support of not invading Iran to stop their nuclear missile development, but here you are opposing that very system which would bolster you argument for this. Missile defense is certainly a less aggressive posture than invading and occupying Iran to prevent their nuclear missile program from being developed.

Iran's nuclear program is equally unimpressive. Europe is dealing with Iran, there's nothing positive the U.S. can contribute. The best thing the U.S. can do with Iran is stay out of it, let Europe handle them.

But without the ABM system which you oppose, there is nothing to stop their one feeble missile from destroying one of our great cities full of liberals criticising the War in Iraq.

A large issue here is the appropriate use of intervention throughout the world. Many third world countries deliberately played off the Soviet Union against the United States to ensure neither had significant impact on their country. Now that the Soviet Union is no more, the United States is the only country attempting to be a superpower.

Actually China is too, and Putin hasn't given up on Russia. The difference between you and me is I don't view dictatorships to be equal players with properly elected governments in democratic countries. I don't give a fig about what the head honcho strongman of country X thinks, if he's not properly elected, he is not a legitimate representative of that country. If the people were to elect a Chavez and her were to seize power, take over the media and try to destabilize his neighbors for no reason other than to aqcuire power for himself, this calls into question the judgement of the people who elected and reelected him, perhaps they aren't ready for democracy yet, and perhaps they aren't ready to be an independent country either, I'd be happy to have Brazil take them over. Perhaps we should support a Brazilian version of Manifest Destiny and get rid of Chavez by getting rid of Venuzualia. Its people are certainly dumb enough to elect leaders who so obviously want to overthrow democracy, so they wouldn't mind if their Spanish speaking population were to suddenly become a minority in an enlarged Brazil. They have no right to complain after all, since they threw away their rights when they elected a leader that wanted to take away their rights.

Those counties who insist of independence are now left with a problem, how to ensure the United States does not rule them.

Or perhaps their people ruling them instead of they ruling them. The main thing a leader of an undemocratic country wants is to preserve their power, they don't want the US ruling them not because they care about their countries independence but because they would lose there power over their countries in the process. If the US were to hold elections in their countries, the dictators would still lose power, that is what they are worried about. Independence is meaningless without freedom, it means something for the nation's leaders, but not for the people in those nations. If a strongman rules them or the United States makes no difference to the average citizen. if you want the average citizen to have a dog in this fight, then give him some freedom and democracy. If you care only about independence, then you have to persuade the people to fight for their dictator's right to rule over them independently, which is what that dictator is actually concerned about.

Those who committed the terrorist acts are criminals who killed thousands of people; they have to answer for that. The sane course of action is to root out al-Qaeda and bring its members to trial. I have to emphasize trial. It is a crime; military action is revenge, court trial and sentencing is justice. Revenge results in a cycle: those who you seek revenge upon will be offended and seek revenge upon you, then you seek revenge for their action, and they seek revenge for yours, etc, etc. Justice puts an end to the cycle, but you have to capture the accused alive to bring them to trial.

Which is why we invaded Afghanistan. Fighting terrorism only when they come into our country is much like that missile defense system that you criticize, its not going to get every one. When we can't stop every missile that comes into this country, it doesn't make sense to let things develop in the world to the point where our enemy gets to launch them at us, and the same goes for terrorists, if the problem comes from another country, we have to go to that country to root them out.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-14 10:28:42

I'm still trying to figure out how some Middle-Eastern-born Arabic (*) U.S. visa [expired] holder, who only wanted to learn how to fly a plane horizontally (didn't want to learn takeoff, landing or anything else), DIDN'T raise any red flags in the minds of the morons giving flying lessons...
...until after 9/11.
Terrorists can come into Canada and down into the U.S. But of course they can -- and do -- also come through our front door. All the 9/11 hijackers were welcomed into the U.S. by us!
I can't condone "arming" the northern border for a couple of reasons (one being our Canadian friends don't deserve the insult). Tighter controls at the major points of entry should be enough.
(*) Most of whom hate Israel and us for supporting Israel

If you build a "wall" it must be continous or the people who want to get through and harm us are only going to go around that "wall". I can see a common "wall" surrounding both the US and Canada and if that happens, then I see no reason to guard the border between the US and Canada. If the US is vigilant and Canada is lax and the border between the US and Canada is not guarded, then the terrorists are going to have some incentive to enter through Canada. If this hasn't happend yet doesn't mean that we aren't vulnerable. this sort of security is sort of like the security of a homeowner who doesn't lock his doors and windows, excusing himself by saying, "Well we've never been robbed, so leaving the doors unlocked would seem to be a friendly gesture. Many people install security systems and locks only after they've been burgalarized.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-14 11:26:34

Tom, You seem obsessed with "winning". The goal is to protect the lives of citizens within the borders of your own country, not to "win". Fighting a war against a bunch of criminals is like using a sword to fight a hydra. As soon as you cut off one head, two more grow. The sword cannot defeat a hydra, every attack merely makes it stronger. Or I can say it's like using a gun to fight rain. New Orleans found how much damage can be done by a hurricane. Once the levees broke the city flooded, do you want to fight floodwater with a tank? You can't, the tank shells will simply splash and sink through the water; it will not cause flood water to leave the city. This is what you're doing by sending military to defeat a criminal organization.

The military is designed to fight a military. A geographic country traditionally has a limited piece of land and resources only from that land. Personnel are limited, some are farmers, some are miners, some are factory workers, some are teachers or bankers or researchers. Others are soldiers. The pool of personnel available is limited, recruiting soldiers takes away from those building military equipment or from sustaining the economy that supports the military. It’s a matter of managing limited resources. You can try to manage your country's resources better, making your military stronger. However, a terrorist organization is completely different. They don't own any territory. They have commercial, profit making operations in other countries. Many of the countries in which they operate are your allies, and in fact some of their profit making operations are within your own country. They purchase equipment from the same arms manufacturers who supply your own military; they don't have military factories of their own. That means the pool of resources your country draws from is the same resources the terrorist organization draws from. When you commit atrocities, it creates incentive for citizens throughout the world to join their campaign against you. That means the pool of personnel from which they recruit solders is the same pool of personnel which is your allies, and in fact includes your own country's citizens. You can't beat them down, you can't manage an economy better to build greater strength, because they draw resources and personnel from your own. You are fighting a hydra with a sword.

Alternatively, if you treat terrorism as a crime the emphasis is to behave in an ethical manner. This isn't just "doing the right thing", it's a very practical strategy for success. Dropping a cruise missile on an al-Qaeda training camp in a country not your own, and without the approval of that country's government simply justifies terrorist tactics and creates martyrs who can be used as propaganda to recruit more soldiers from all countries through the world. If you send in will armed, well trained police to arrest them, it demonstrates you will not be dragged down to their level and that their activities are criminal acts and their members will be treated as criminals. This creates a disincentive for new members to join their organization. Ethical behaviour starves them of new recruits, both for soldiers and commercial profit making operatives.

Get it? Stop chopping the heads off a hydra, instead starve it.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-14 12:21:28

how can we allow the Armed Forces of the furemost Superpower in the World to be defeated by a band of Criminals?

It is the attempt to be a superpower that creates recruits for terrorism. The more you attempt to assert control, the more recruits will join their cause. Some recruits will earn money, others will be soldiers, both make them stronger.

it looks like the US Congress is going to allow this band of criminals to defeat our armed forces by withoulding funds

The U.S. military budget in year 2000 was $288 billion. For 2007 it is $633 billion. That's hardly starving anyone.
Reference: The Budget Graph

There are some interesting facts from this chart. Total US discretionary budget for 2007 is $983 billion, of which the military gets $633 billion or 64%. The department of Vetrans Affairs is not considered military, it gets $35.697 billion. National Nuclear Security Administration is also not considered military; it gets $9.316 billion. When you add these in, it totals $678.013 billion or 68.97% of total discretionary budget.

The Department of Defense states it's budget is only $470 billion, but that doesn't include nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements).

John Creighton · 2007-01-14 12:38:00

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.

At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbor terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defense. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-14 12:40:23

Tom, You seem obsessed with "winning". The goal is to protect the lives of citizens within the borders of your own country, not to "win". Fighting a war against a bunch of criminals is like using a sword to fight a hydra. As soon as you cut off one head, two more grow. The sword cannot defeat a hydra, every attack merely makes it stronger. Or I can say it's like using a gun to fight rain. New Orleans found how much damage can be done by a hurricane. Once the levees broke the city flooded, do you want to fight floodwater with a tank? You can't, the tank shells will simply splash and sink through the water; it will not cause flood water to leave the city. This is what you're doing by sending military to defeat a criminal organization.

So your calling terrorism and crime a force of nature? So do you suggest that we try to placate it instead by making offerings of tribute? Sorry I don't want my country to be part of somebody else's empire ruled by terrorism. We try to win the war in order to deter the next enemy and in that way we secure public safety. As for crime in general, there are cases where the problem requires a military solution instead of law enforcement. The Italian Mafia is one such example: If an Italian prosecutor pursues mob figures too vigourously, then he ends up assassinated, the arm of the Mafia reaches up to the highest corridor of power. I'd rather not have terrorism rule my country the way the Mafia rules Italy. Living with a criminal organization running a country is no better than rule by a military dictatorship. So you'd rather the US Government pay protection money to terrorist organizations like Saudi Arabia does instead of fighting it? I'd rather my country go down fighting terrorism in an ever expanding conflict than have it submit to the forces of terrorism and pay tribute. You see the countries and peoples that support terrorism can be made to pay a terrible price for it if the US fights instead of submits. If the War is not winnable then at least we can make sure both sides lose and maybe that prospect alone will deter the enemy from attacking, same as the principle of mutually assure destruction. The key thing is even if we can't win, we'll make sure the other side loses the same as us. Besides 3000 casualities over several years is not alot, despite how much the Media wants to hype it, and we're taking a toll in enemy casualities that is many times that of our own despite how much the Media wants to suppress it. The best way to win a war on terrorism is to outlast the terrorists and get a media that is on our side in fighting them, instead of acting like we could end it at any time simply by withdrawing. Can you guarantee that there will be no further terrorist attacks if we withdraw from Iraq?

The military is designed to fight a military. A geographic country traditionally has a limited piece of land and resources only from that land. Personnel are limited, some are farmers, some are miners, some are factory workers, some are teachers or bankers or researchers. Others are soldiers. The pool of personnel available is limited, recruiting soldiers takes away from those building military equipment or from sustaining the economy that supports the military. It’s a matter of managing limited resources. You can try to manage your country's resources better, making your military stronger. However, a terrorist organization is completely different. They don't own any territory. They have commercial, profit making operations in other countries. Many of the countries in which they operate are your allies,

Not really. Either they are prosecuted and arrested or that country is not an ally.

and in fact some of their profit making operations are within your own country.

Then the law will prosecute them if they are found to be supporting terrorists, we do not allow them simply to continue to operate if known. If unknown then they are rebels, and we fight them like we did the previous rebellion in this country.

They purchase equipment from the same arms manufacturers who supply your own military;

The that arms dealer will cease to exist as a legitimate arms dealer. We fight all enemies foreign and domestic, that is part of the Presidential Oath of office in fact. I guess you kind of President would take that Oath with a wink and a nod and vow only to fight enemies that are in uniform and stand up right in front of our guns.

they don't have military factories of their own. That means the pool of resources your country draws from is the same resources the terrorist organization draws from.

That is where the FBI and CIA get involved. Terrorism is not in of itself profitable, resources must be siphoned off from legitimate sources and people's incomes to fund terrorism, we must find those people and arrest them. If its alot of people then we expel most of them and arrest the ring leaders. I am always nervious about immigrants who might be sympathetic to terrorist goals.

When you commit atrocities, it creates incentive for citizens throughout the world to join their campaign against you.

Forgotten about mutually assured destruction already have you? Why are you against missile defense then, if you seemingly have doubts about the ability of our offensive nuclear forces to deter? Let if be know to the World that if the World goes against us, then that is how the World will end, it would be no different than if the Soviets attacked us during the Cold War except that our missiles would be spread out across more of the World. Now if the World expects us to simply accept terrorism and if we don't, they'll attack us, then they'll find our that they too and their countries will also be destroyed.

That means the pool of personnel from which they recruit solders is the same pool of personnel which is your allies, and in fact includes your own country's citizens. You can't beat them down, you can't manage an economy better to build greater strength, because they draw resources and personnel from your own. You are fighting a hydra with a sword.

Yeah, I can just picture the terrorist recruiting in a shopping mall right next to the Army recruiters. Here you have the clean shaven sergent recruiting soldiers and the scruffy looking terrorist recruiting terrorists, and some young kind trying to make a thoughtful decision about whether to join the Army or become a terrorist.

Alternatively, if you treat terrorism as a crime the emphasis is to behave in an ethical manner. This isn't just "doing the right thing", it's a very practical strategy for success. Dropping a cruise missile on an al-Qaeda training camp in a country not your own, and without the approval of that country's government simply justifies terrorist tactics and creates martyrs who can be used as propaganda to recruit more soldiers from all countries through the world.

We didn't obtain Germany's approval to knock out its War plants and training camps did we? What would have happened if we went up to Adolf Hitler and asked his permission to bomb his country, because we had information that certain people in his country were training to fight a war against us, we're manufacturing weapons to kill our soldiers etc.? Would Adolf Hitler give his permission to make a strike against his country, which technically is not under our jurisdiction?

If you send in will armed, well trained police to arrest them, it demonstrates you will not be dragged down to their level and that their activities are criminal acts and their members will be treated as criminals. This creates a disincentive for new members to join their organization. Ethical behaviour starves them of new recruits, both for soldiers and commercial profit making operatives.
Get it? Stop chopping the heads off a hydra, instead starve it.

Was the Confederate Army of the Confederate States of America a Criminal Organization? The United States did not recognize the Confederate States as a sovereign nation, therefore any activities of the Confederate Government and Army would fall under our jurisdiction. What would Lee and his Army have done if he was confronted by a bunch of cops who wanted to arrest him instead of the Federal Army? Was it unlawful for Federal Troops to fight the Confederacy since the Federal Government did not recognize the Confederacy? For me, instead of tackling these legal questions, I would have wanted to just win the War.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-01-11 08:29:27

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#2 2007-01-11 09:01:34

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#3 2007-01-11 23:33:36

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#4 2007-01-12 07:35:30

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#5 2007-01-12 07:59:06

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#6 2007-01-12 08:51:18

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#7 2007-01-12 09:24:31

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#8 2007-01-12 11:52:03

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#9 2007-01-12 13:01:01

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#10 2007-01-12 19:59:37

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#11 2007-01-12 20:00:25

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#12 2007-01-12 23:34:22

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#13 2007-01-13 02:14:27

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#14 2007-01-13 07:31:31

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#15 2007-01-13 07:38:36

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#16 2007-01-13 13:55:15

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#17 2007-01-13 15:31:05

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#18 2007-01-13 15:36:05

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#19 2007-01-13 15:42:22

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#20 2007-01-14 10:13:54

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#21 2007-01-14 10:28:42

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#22 2007-01-14 11:26:34

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#23 2007-01-14 12:21:28

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#24 2007-01-14 12:38:00

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#25 2007-01-14 12:40:23

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

Board footer