Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 23:15:39

For your information, I have been frusterated with the Middle East for longer than you have been alive. I see from your posting that you are 18 years old, and already you think you know everything. Well, I was 18 years old in 1985,
Then you must be going senile. Just because your older (i don't attempt to hide my age by the way. I put has march 88. Whats to hide?) does not mean that your wiser.

Many 18 year olds think that, and as they grow older and wiser, other 18 years olds who take thei place think the same thing. Much of what you have learned was in school and by reading books in history class. You learned about the Iranian hostage crisis from a history textbook, I actually live those years, I saw each news show, the video tapes of the blindfolded hostages and their captors day-by-day as it happened. I think I learned that particular episode better than you could of through a high school history book. When you live through history, you learn it very well.

I still do in fact, but for 22 years, I've seen the violence go on and on, and I lose my patience with it. Tinkering around the edges, I see hasn't solved anything. I'd like to get this problem off the table so we can concentrate our resources on more worthy things like space exploration.
I'm just goign to go an put an idea forward that could stop most of the violence in the middle east but upset you.
How about stop trying to shape middle east the way you want by supporting regimes and pressuring/attacking governments because they don't either like you or fit your profile of a "good government" ( government that isn't pro USA).

It won't work, it was tried by President Jimmy Carter, and I remember Jimmy's noninterference policy, and that resulted in the Iranian Hostage crisis, and it drove him out of office. When you a first world super power, you have to interfere. We learned that with the rise of Nazi Germany. The world we want to shape is one that's friendly to democracy, this policy doesn't always make us popular with other countries, but it is necessary to prevent resort to World War III.

Oh yes, when I was in high school, I was taught that Islam was a peaceful religion, all the Islamic violence since then and the 9/11 attacks have convinced my that this was all propaganda, that we were dumbly supposed to swallow.
Well i think your a bigger idiot in beleivng that 1.4 billion people want to kill you.

I look high and low for all the peaceful Muslims that supposedly exist, but tell me this, if they are so peaceful, how come we have to be so careful about offending them or even criticising them, they take offense so easily at the slightest cartoon or pronouncement of the Pope, and they respond with violence, even when they are criticised for their violent behavior.
Soo erm your angry because you can't criticizes Islam? lol. Thats just sad.

I'm sick of this B.S. I have a finite lifespan and it is already half over, I'd like to see this Middle East problem in my lifetime, it is a waste of our resources trying to deal with it,
WHO IS ASKING YOU TO DEAL WITH IT?

Procrastinate then? Kick the can down the road and let the menace get bigger until you can no longer ignore it and dealing with it becomes costlier. You need to experience life more, rather than get it second hand through textbooks and the author's opinion about what is. You need time to form your own opinion as does every 18 year old. I do not hold the same opinions I did when I was 18 years old, and I don't expect you to do so either.

USA is in the middle east because IT and IT alone wants to be there. So that the oil is in friendly pro USA hands. They try to shape the middle east into countries that they want. They pressured Syria to leave Lebanon (ignoring their illegal occupation of Iraq and the illegal occupation of Palestine). They congratuled the lebanese. They told them that it was a new beginning for them. What did the USA do when Lebanon was vicously attacked by Israel even parts that didn't have any Hezbollah supporters?

Oh poor innocent Lebanon, they didn't seem to mind Hezbollah occupying their country and ruling part of it without their permission, and they did not try to assert control either, but when the "Dirty Jews" defended themselves from attacks and occupied the parts of the country Hezbollah held, suddenly they were outraged by foreigners on their soil, soil they did not govern or contest with Hezbollah for. The government of Lebannon was responsible for that attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, this after Israel gives up land to the Palestinians. That you would so quickly swallow this slick Arabist propaganda just shows how young and naive you are. not that I blame you, many 18 years olds are this way, they learn with time, but by that time they are no longer 18 years old.

They supplied Israel with cluster bombs. Most were dropped during the last 72 hours when Israel knew they had to stop fighthing. They also blocked earlier attempts to stop the fighting. How can USA then have the audacity to say that they have the best intrest of Lebanon in mind? How can they say that to them when they backstabbed them so hard. Thats what you need to think about so get your head out of your ass.

Is it in the best interests of Lebannese to have their land as staging ground for attacks on Israel and thus subjecting themselves to Israeli retaliation. Many innocent Berliners died when Great Britian retaliated for the German bombings of London, those were cluster bombs. Since Great Britian used cluster bombs to help win World War II, they have no place criticising the Israelis from using cluster bombs as well.

and it takes away from our ability to properly explore space and colonize the Solar System.

OK. Your older then me. Then you should know. That Science. Espeically Space Exploration has little regard in the budget room. When USA wasn't in a major war and the realtions with the SSSR was good. Why did Reagon spend more then a trillion on the army? I'm sure if he took that money and spent it on research space exploration would have gone far. But i doubt it. The money would have probably been spent on something else. Also the $300 billion budget could have come really handy to NASA. They could have probably funded Mars Expidtions. But it will never happen. The only thing space is to politicians is a publicity act. Thats it. They don't care.

Reagan had a Cold War to fight, the Soviets were a real menace and he also had to defend Europe and your country too. We don't want to mess with the middle east, we gain no benefits from doing so other than preventing bad things from happening. We pay alot of money out for expensive imported oil, and that is a major proportion of our trade deficit this year. We are basically preventing bad from becoming worse, not reaping benefits and cheap oil from our involvement.

We'll speak more of this later, i have run out of time for today.

noosfractal · 2006-10-15 00:42:14

It's not just Sunnis. It's also Shii. It's the general Iraqi who is angry about the occupation.

I'll grant there's some activity that is reaction against the occupation, and I'm sure Al-Sadr's people attack US troops as a team building exercise.

What do you think would happen if the US withdrew after the US midterm elections?

Also Kurds. You can't forget the kurds.

Yes, the Kurds have had the clearest gameplan since the fall of Saddam. Note their current focus on Kirkuk. Could it be the 11+ billion barrels of oil there?

At least the Shii are fighting the americans and getting help from Hezbollah via Iran.

It would be a shocking result for the US if Iraq, or even part of it, became an Islamic theocracy.

The Kurds are having their troops trained by Israel.

Wow. I missed that. They're planning for partition then. I guess it is inevitable at this point. De facto partition if not formal.

Saudi Arabia has no power over the insurgents.

The religious institution there has enormous power and authority if they choose to use it. If push came to shove (i.e., over oil) they would use it.

Insurgents hate them and the Saudis are terrified that Islamsits will over throw them and they will lose their pampered luxiours lifestyle.

I agree that the royals are in a difficult position, and likely have no influence.

Saudi Arabia is a joke.

Definitely a place of contradictions. Its oil wealth has enabled a frozen culture.

Hmmm, top heavy with 40+ guys (what the hell happened to all the gals, by the way?). Could stay conservative for a long time. Looks more normal by 2050.

DonPanic · 2006-10-15 07:33:55

LO

What do you think would happen if the US withdrew after the US midterm elections?

Sure a damned deplesant ethnic war at first, until the force balance gets stabilised

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-15 08:42:34

Wow. I missed that. They're planning for partition then. I guess it is inevitable at this point. De facto partition if not formal.

Frankly I'd give the pourous mountain regions to the Sunnies Shiites, and give the rest of Iraq to the Kurds, that's how I'd partition Iraq. I'd redraw the borders so that the ones of Kurdistan are all on flat terrain, so you can put up a wall and lay mine fields to prevent insurgents from sneaking through, with no rocky crags to hide behind they would be completely exposed to machine gun fire as they traverse the mine fields. I'd also make Kurdish the official language of Kurdistan, and anyone caught speaking Arabic would be arrested on suspition of terrorist activities and expelled from the country, that way anyone who wants to sneak into Kurdistand and blow some things up, would first have to learn Kurdish, and then probably would end up speaking it with a bad Arabic accent, thus drawing the attention of the Police. Also Turkey and Iran could then dump their Kurdish populations into the new state of Kurdistan, thus cleaning out their Kurdish minority problems. They'll say, "You wanted Kurdish independence, well here you go - your independent! Now get moving to Kurdistan, Go!"

DonPanic · 2006-10-15 09:42:13

(...) that's how I'd partition Iraq. I'd redraw the borders so that the ones of Kurdistan are all on flat terrain, (...) etc

Before you can do that, get up early, do work hard in order to become the Master of the World,
and, by the way, have a look in the dictionnary at the word "dictatorship"

:shock: Diagnosis: Megalomania with paranoid tendencies

Stormrage · 2006-10-15 19:06:40

Many 18 year olds think that, and as they grow older and wiser, other 18 years olds who take thei place think the same thing. Much of what you have learned was in school and by reading books in history class. You learned about the Iranian hostage crisis from a history textbook, I actually live those years, I saw each news show, the video tapes of the blindfolded hostages and their captors day-by-day as it happened. I think I learned that particular episode better than you could of through a high school history book. When you live through history, you learn it very well.

It won't work, it was tried by President Jimmy Carter, and I remember Jimmy's noninterference policy, and that resulted in the Iranian Hostage crisis, and it drove him out of office. When you a first world super power, you have to interfere. We learned that with the rise of Nazi Germany. The world we want to shape is one that's friendly to democracy, this policy doesn't always make us popular with other countries, but it is necessary to prevent resort to World War III.

First of all i don't learn from school text books. I use History books,Internet and Tv documentary. Do you know what i also have? The ability of hindsight. While you were sitting there watching the hostage crisis. Did you know how much Carter supported the Shah? He didn't leave the middle east like you said.

Procrastinate then? Kick the can down the road and let the menace get bigger until you can no longer ignore it and dealing with it becomes costlier. You need to experience life more, rather than get it second hand through textbooks and the author's opinion about what is. You need time to form your own opinion as does every 18 year old. I do not hold the same opinions I did when I was 18 years old, and I don't expect you to do so either.

It is not your country. It is not your land. Neither is it in your continent. Amazing how you haven't learned from the disasters in South America.

Oh poor innocent Lebanon, they didn't seem to mind Hezbollah occupying their country and ruling part of it without their permission, and they did not try to assert control either, but when the "Dirty Jews" defended themselves from attacks and occupied the parts of the country Hezbollah held, suddenly they were outraged by foreigners on their soil, soil they did not govern or contest with Hezbollah for. The government of Lebannon was responsible for that attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, this after Israel gives up land to the Palestinians. That you would so quickly swallow this slick Arabist propaganda just shows how young and naive you are. not that I blame you, many 18 years olds are this way, they learn with time, but by that time they are no longer 18 years old.

You make me sick.

Since Great Britian used cluster bombs to help win World War II, they have no place criticising the Israelis from using cluster bombs as well.

Using it in the last 3 days when Israel knew that it had to leave. Using it in farm lands where children are at risks?

Man i just wonder. Destroying two buildings in USA is a global outrage. Killing people in Lebanon is just a strategy.

Reagan had a Cold War to fight, the Soviets were a real menace and he also had to defend Europe and your country too. We don't want to mess with the middle east, we gain no benefits from doing so other than preventing bad things from happening. We pay alot of money out for expensive imported oil, and that is a major proportion of our trade deficit this year. We are basically preventing bad from becoming worse, not reaping benefits and cheap oil from our involvement.

More bullshit. There was friendly relations with China. Treaties had been signed with the Soviet Union to reduce the chance of war. The SSSR was crumbling and EUROPE NEEDED NO DEFENCE. What is with you and defending europe. Your crazy.

Wow. I missed that. They're planning for partition then. I guess it is inevitable at this point. De facto partition if not formal.

I saw that on Newsnight in BBC. I was shocked,horrified and disgusted to see them being trained. I hope they suffer the repercussion soon.

The religious institution there has enormous power and authority if they choose to use it. If push came to shove (i.e., over oil) they would use it. I agree that the royals are in a difficult position, and likely have no influence.

The Religous groups that Islamists use in Saudi Arabia are banned. Most of the Jihadists in Iraq listen to Bin Laden and the leader of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers. But they make up a tiny portion of the Insurgents. Most of them don't listen or follow a orders from religous leaders. They are just there to free Iraq.

Frankly I'd give the pourous mountain regions to the Sunnies Shiites, and give the rest of Iraq to the Kurds, that's how I'd partition Iraq. I'd redraw the borders so that the ones of Kurdistan are all on flat terrain, so you can put up a wall and lay mine fields to prevent insurgents from sneaking through, with no rocky crags to hide behind they would be completely exposed to machine gun fire as they traverse the mine fields. I'd also make Kurdish the official language of Kurdistan, and anyone caught speaking Arabic would be arrested on suspition of terrorist activities and expelled from the country, that way anyone who wants to sneak into Kurdistand and blow some things up, would first have to learn Kurdish, and then probably would end up speaking it with a bad Arabic accent, thus drawing the attention of the Police. Also Turkey and Iran could then dump their Kurdish populations into the new state of Kurdistan, thus cleaning out their Kurdish minority problems. They'll say, "You wanted Kurdish independence, well here you go - your independent! Now get moving to Kurdistan, Go!"

Do you feel the need to embarass your self? Because what you wrote will never happen. Lets say that your idea is implemented. What would happen is that the Kurds would resist. They want to live in the place they live in NOW. They don't want to move for to get their land they want to live in their ancestral land.

Iraq is a 29 million society. So far USA is suffering from couple of thousands of insurgents. Moving 29 million people will cause even more resistance. An Intifada would happen. USA wouldn't be able to control it. 150k troops can never control a fighting population that measures in millions.

noosfractal · 2006-10-15 19:58:19

Wow. I missed that. They're planning for partition then. I guess it is inevitable at this point. De facto partition if not formal.
I saw that on Newsnight in BBC. I was shocked,horrified and disgusted to see them being trained. I hope they suffer the repercussion soon.

Surely you can conjure some sympathy for them given your own background. The Kurds have suffered interminably. You can't blame them for wanting self-determination.

The religious institution there has enormous power and authority if they choose to use it. If push came to shove (i.e., over oil) they would use it. I agree that the royals are in a difficult position, and likely have no influence.
The Religous groups that Islamists use in Saudi Arabia are banned. Most of the Jihadists in Iraq listen to Bin Laden and the leader of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers. But they make up a tiny portion of the Insurgents. Most of them don't listen or follow a orders from religous leaders. They are just there to free Iraq.

Are the insurgents from outside Iraq that big a factor? The US admin accuses Iran of sending people, and frankly I don't doubt it's true, but the people who have got to be fighting tooth and nail are the Iraqi Sunnis. Fallujah isn't mentioned in the US media any more, but I can't imagine that the Iraqi Sunnis have forgotten.

DonPanic · 2006-10-16 01:20:35

I'm talking about countries that attack us!

Did Iraq attack USA ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 01:29:53

First of all i don't learn from school text books. I use History books,Internet and Tv documentary. Do you know what i also have? The ability of hindsight. While you were sitting there watching the hostage crisis. Did you know how much Carter supported the Shah?

Apparently not enough, Carter was more concerned about the Hostages than about reversing the Iranian Revolution. If I was President back then, I would have given those students one chance to release those hostages, just once chance, and if they didn't release them, I would send the Marines over to rescue them, and if the hostages were killed, I would declare War on Iran and launch a full scale invasion for this outrage. I would fight to win and to overthrow the Revolutionary regime, what ever follows the Ayatollah would learn not to mess with the United States. I would offer assistance in rebuilding Iran, but I would not try too hard in offering it, nor would I put US soldiers in disadvantageous positions with restrictive rules of engagment. They attack US soldiers, they will be punished. We hold quick and dirty elections, get a government elected under a constitution we impose on them just as we did on Japan, and if that regime collapses and another dictator rises to power, we serve notice on him that if he messes with us like the Ayatollah did, he could share his fate. I'm not overly concerned with nation building. My approach is more stick and less carrot. It turns out that the Muslim world doesn't respond very well to carrots, they interpret it as a sign of weakness and use it as an opportunity to attack our troops, that is the real lesson of the Iraq war, as far as I'm concerned. I'm always more concerned about our own troops than I am about the welfare of the conquered former enemy.

He didn't leave the middle east like you said.

Procrastinate then? Kick the can down the road and let the menace get bigger until you can no longer ignore it and dealing with it becomes costlier. You need to experience life more, rather than get it second hand through textbooks and the author's opinion about what is. You need time to form your own opinion as does every 18 year old. I do not hold the same opinions I did when I was 18 years old, and I don't expect you to do so either.
It is not your country. It is not your land. Neither is it in your continent. Amazing how you haven't learned from the disasters in South America.

South America is quite peaceful when compared with the Middle East, it seems most denzens of South America seem to prefer a condition of peace over a state of war, they don't have the relentless Jihad thats driving them to sacrifice their lives for that "piece of heaven" that their leaders are always promising them if they obey. I like the Western Hemisphere much better than the East. In the west, most wars are a dictator's idea, and people here don't enjoy fighting and dying as much as Middle East Arabs seem to do.

Oh poor innocent Lebanon, they didn't seem to mind Hezbollah occupying their country and ruling part of it without their permission, and they did not try to assert control either, but when the "Dirty Jews" defended themselves from attacks and occupied the parts of the country Hezbollah held, suddenly they were outraged by foreigners on their soil, soil they did not govern or contest with Hezbollah for. The government of Lebannon was responsible for that attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, this after Israel gives up land to the Palestinians. That you would so quickly swallow this slick Arabist propaganda just shows how young and naive you are. not that I blame you, many 18 years olds are this way, they learn with time, but by that time they are no longer 18 years old.

You make me sick.

Its fairly logical. Unlike you I remember who started the war between Lebanon and Israel, it was the Lebanese. Never mind that the Lebanese government protested its innocence, it really didn't try very hard to dislodge Hezbollah, it let them operate unmolested, and it even let Hezbollah participate in its own government. In terms of the United States, that would be like the US government letting Confederate legistators continue to vote in Congress and the Senate even as their states continue to rebel against the Federal Government. The Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to continue to operate as a means of evading responsibility for attacking Israel. I'm sorry well reasoned logical arguments make you so sick.

Since Great Britian used cluster bombs to help win World War II, they have no place criticising the Israelis from using cluster bombs as well.
Using it in the last 3 days when Israel knew that it had to leave. Using it in farm lands where children are at risks?

Great Britian killed many German Children when it bomber Berlin, Dresden, and many other places, it was a fight for survival, just like Israel is fighting now. Aerial bombing is designed to soften up the enemy so they can't fight as well. How can you demand that Israel fight in a way that even Great Britian didn't use during World War II? If Great Britian is allowed to bomb German cities and kill German children while defending itself, why shouldn't the Israelis be allowed the same thing, is it because the Israelis are mostly Jews and therefore less worthy f survival than the Anglo Saxon upright Christian British?

Man i just wonder. Destroying two buildings in USA is a global outrage. Killing people in Lebanon is just a strategy.

The difference is Israel was already at war, which was started bysomeone else, and we weren't Al Qaeda just attacked us literally out of the blue, and we weren't attacking Al Qaeda, we didn't have much to do with Afghanistan either, we minded out own business, and as the Soviets were no longer in Afghanistan we let the Afghan people mismanage their own affairs however they liked. Al Qeda was just mad because our ideas of equality, and religious pluraism was invading their region, and we weren't letting them kill enough Jews besides. they attacked us without provokation. Israel was just fighting a war it hadn't started, it tried very hard to get peace with its neighbors and find a satisfactory solution for the Palestinians, and what do they get? The get attacked, and then slammed by the rest of the world for defending themselves, they defended themselves precisely the way we would defend ourselves. There is nothing special about Jews that makes them especially deserving of being kicked and beaten up in the streets. Just because they belong to a religion you don't share, doesn't mean we shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt that we would afford ourselves in self-defense.
But I imagine that this whole argument would do nothing but make you sick.

Reagan had a Cold War to fight, the Soviets were a real menace and he also had to defend Europe and your country too. We don't want to mess with the middle east, we gain no benefits from doing so other than preventing bad things from happening. We pay alot of money out for expensive imported oil, and that is a major proportion of our trade deficit this year. We are basically preventing bad from becoming worse, not reaping benefits and cheap oil from our involvement.
More bullshit. There was friendly relations with China. Treaties had been signed with the Soviet Union to reduce the chance of war. The SSSR was crumbling and EUROPE NEEDED NO DEFENCE. What is with you and defending europe. Your crazy.

Wow. I missed that. They're planning for partition then. I guess it is inevitable at this point. De facto partition if not formal.
I saw that on Newsnight in BBC. I was shocked,horrified and disgusted to see them being trained. I hope they suffer the repercussion soon.

What do you care? A Muslim is a Muslim. I don't read the Koran, so I don't give a damn about those petty 1300 year old differences in doctorine they are fighting and murdering each other over, it might as well be over which side of the egg to crack open. What I do care about is their tendency to attack Americans, both Shiites and Sunnies have done that, to me they are both the same, a black box that trains terrorists to kill Americans. The Kurds haven't bothered us so much, so I tend to favor them. if Iraq is partitioned, I think we should see to it that the Kurds get the largest and most valuable piece, as I don't believe in rewarding out enemies.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 01:31:34

I'm talking about countries that attack us!
Did Iraq attack USA ?

Yes, when it Attacked Kuwait and threatened our oil supply and hence by extention our economy, that got us involved.

DonPanic · 2006-10-16 03:01:03

I'm talking about countries that attack us!
Did Iraq attack USA ?
Yes, when it Attacked Kuwait and threatened our oil supply and hence by extention our economy, that got us involved.

Koweit has been created by the British, as well as the countries fronteer lines in the region. But let's respect them.

So, after the Iraqis attacked Koweit, were defeated, had their Koweit expeditionnary army corp crushed, only very few heavy armament left, embargoed with straight UNO control monitored by US & Brit Air Forces and coalised war fleets, on the ground inspections, did they still endangered USA or threaten any ordinary US citizen ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 09:36:24

Did Iraq attack USA ?
Yes, when it Attacked Kuwait and threatened our oil supply and hence by extention our economy, that got us involved.
Koweit has been created by the British, as well as the countries fronteer lines in the region. But let's respect them.
So, after the Iraqis attacked Koweit, were defeated, had their Koweit expeditionnary army corp crushed, only very few heavy armament left, embargoed with straight UNO control monitored by US & Brit Air Forces and coalised war fleets, on the ground inspections, did they still endangered USA or threaten any ordinary US citizen ?

You know your French History. What happened after World War I, when the combined might of the Allies, including the Americans defeated the Germans and the Germans withdrew after an negotiated armistice? I think the Persian Gulf War ended muck like World War I did, but on a smaller scale. In the case of World War I, it was your country France that was contested. Germany wanted a piece of France. Would you want to let them have it? After World War I, people in France and elsewhere got the feeling that War was a bad thing, they looked at their tanks and soldiers and said, "Bad Bad, war is bad!" and then they shook their fingers at their generals and said, "We don't want no more war, do you hear?" Then some simpletons concluded that the best way not to have a war is not to properly prepare for it, they embrace this doctrine of defensive war only, and built fortifications, saying things like, "Well the Germans shouldn't feel threatend by our fixed fortifications, and should therefore give them no reason to attack us." Thus the Magnot line was established, but then some penny pinchers cam along and said, "That Arden forest is really impassable, we have no real reason to extend the wall there, and we certainly wouldn't want to offend the neutral Belgian by extending the wall along their border. We know then Belgians aren't going to invade us, and the Germans wouldn't invade Belgium because they are a neutral country, would they? Oh lets build some roads through the Ardens, it would be nice to picnic there wouldn't it. Tanks are designed to off road travel, so they' get bogged down in the mud, they wouldn't actually use the roads would they? Oh no they certainly wouldn't!"

DonPanic · 2006-10-16 12:40:48

You know your French History. What happened after World War I,

We are talking about Iraq, not about Germany which was the 2nd world industrial power with almost twice the french population at this time?
You mix things that have nothing to see, the stupidity of the french commandment with outdated strategy don't have anything common with the second war at Iraq.

It is proved that Iraq had nothing to see with the 9/11
That Saddam tried to get rid of Bin Ladin which designated him as a unbeliever ennemy of Islam.
None of any pretext given by the administration, WMD, terrorism at the west, collusion with Al Qaeda wasn't a lie.
Are you a blockhead ?
How long will you trust liars who share with friends the citizens' money supposed to devellop Iraq, supposed to rebuild new Orleans ?

Now, the US Army is limed in Iraq when more troops in Afghanistan might have permitted to catch Bin Ladin and control the fronteers in order to stop the heroin production which support guerilla there, when its threat at North Korea is quite inexisting ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-17 15:00:43

You know your French History. What happened after World War I,
We are talking about Iraq, not about Germany which was the 2nd world industrial power with almost twice the french population at this time?
You mix things that have nothing to see, the stupidity of the french commandment with outdated strategy don't have anything common with the second war at Iraq.

Well, you must admit, The French government made a mistake, and so did perhaps the US government, but who paid for it more dearly?
The French mistake was that they underestimated the Germans, the American mistake is perhaps we overestimated the Iraqis. I think it is better to make the mistake we made than the mistake the French made in underestimating the Germans. The French would have undoubtably been better off if they had an overly aggressive posture with the Germans, and they wouldn't have been occupied by the Germans. Lets see, when the Germans occupied the Rhine, that would have been sufficient pretext for France to invade and occupy Germany, removing the Hitler government and restoring democratic rule and freedom to the benighted German people who were oppressed by this tyrant. Hitler could have gone on trial just like Saddam was. The charges would have been exceeding his authority, the persecution of the Jews, violating the armistice treaty ending World War I. France could have saved millions of lives and averted World War II if it had erred on the side of caution, and stomped out the Hitler Dictatorship the first chance it got. Would France have been criticised as being overly aggressive by the rest of the World? Perhaps. I think the Iraq War was a success in the respect that it removed the threat of Saddam Hussein, it was never in our ability to win the peace afterwards, that was up to the Iraqi people and only the Iraqi people, if that part has failed it was a failure of the Iraqi people, not of George Bush.

It is proved that Iraq had nothing to see with the 9/11
That Saddam tried to get rid of Bin Ladin which designated him as a unbeliever ennemy of Islam.
None of any pretext given by the administration, WMD, terrorism at the west, collusion with Al Qaeda wasn't a lie.
Are you a blockhead ?

My name is not Charlie Brown.

How long will you trust liars who share with friends the citizens' money supposed to devellop Iraq, supposed to rebuild new Orleans ?

Just because one is not correct, does not make him a liar. Do you think George Bush knowing and deliberately led US troops into this quagmire? The liberals or the left always say two things about George Bush, one is that he's stupid and incompetant, and the other is that he is a liar. If he is a liar, that presupposes that he should know better and is not stupid. If he is stupid, that supposes that he does not know any better and is a mistake and not a lie. Now which is it?

Now, the US Army is limed in Iraq when more troops in Afghanistan might have permitted to catch Bin Ladin and control the fronteers in order to stop the heroin production which support guerilla there, when its threat at North Korea is quite inexisting ?

The best available intelligence is that Bin Lauden is in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan. If George Bush wanted to get him, he would have to send US troops into the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan, but they Pakistan government won't give him permission as Pakistani sovereignty is a sensitive issue. Not so sensitive however that he doesn't allow the tribal areas to rule themselves and operate autonomously without the involvement of the central government. Sounds alot like Lebanon, don't you think. First the central government abdicates responsibility for what goes on in some of its territories, and some of those terroitories effectively declare war on a neighboring state. The central government just "shrugs its shoulders" and says, "Its not my fault, that's territory we don't control, but don't you dare invade, we're very sensitive to foreigners violating out sovereignty!" I think Pakistan should decide whose side they are on. Maybe the Pakistanis don't like us, but they must also decide on who they'd rather have as enemies.

I think the thing to do if we really want to get Bin Lauden is to send our forces into the Pakistani tribal areas and get him, whether the Pakistani government likes it or not. Pakistan, it is true has nuclear weapons, but then so do we, and alot more of them and of greater yield too. I don't think this has to go nuclear, if we make it clear that all we want to do is root out Bin Lauden, Al Qaida, and the Taliban, they wanted to assassinate Mushariff anyway, so I think if the US were to forcefully go in there, he would protest, but not push the issue to hard, nukes will not get used, as he would know the consequences of a nuclear war between the US and Pakistan. Its not really a question of whether our troops are two bogged down in Iraq, but one of international politics. George Bush doesn't want to push matters to severely in the region.

dicktice · 2006-10-17 20:07:47

"I think the thing to do if we really want to get Bin Lauden is to send our forces into the Pakistani tribal areas and get him, whether the Pakistani government likes it or not." Oh boy, are you brave, Tom! In fact, I think you should join up an go in there with the other grunt infantrymen and root him out. When they catch you alone, over there, they skin you alive! He's a god to them, they blow themselves up to preserve his skin. Don't ask me why, I have no such faith in any religion. But the suicide bomber is a new kind of weapon, which we never trained to defend ourselves from when I was an infantryman. Boobytraps, maybe, but human bombs you can't tell from your allies ... forget it, you'd never last a day against those tribes! And nukes ... you must be nuts to think that's the way out of the mess the president has led us into. Daddy knew best, when he quit fighting. Do I hear: "Saddam, you rotten bastard, where are you when we need someone like you to put things back together in Irak again, while we go after Bin Lauden?" Crazy, but not beyond imagination at this stage of the catastrophe.

John Creighton · 2006-10-18 00:51:18

Are we sure Bin Lauden is still alive. There were so French reports not long ago that said he is dead.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-18 11:24:00

"I think the thing to do if we really want to get Bin Lauden is to send our forces into the Pakistani tribal areas and get him, whether the Pakistani government likes it or not." Oh boy, are you brave, Tom! In fact, I think you should join up an go in there with the other grunt infantrymen and root him out. When they catch you alone, over there, they skin you alive! He's a god the them, and blow themselves up to preserve his skin. Don't ask me why, I have no such faith in any religion. But the suicide bomber is a new kind of weapon, which we never trained to defend ourselves from when I was an infantryman. Boobytraps, maybe, but human bombs you can't tell from your allies ... forget it, you'd never last a day against those tribes! And nukes ... you must be nuts to think that's the way out of the mess the president has led us into. Daddy knew best, when he quit fighting. Do I hear: "Saddam, you rotten bastard, where are you when we need someone like you to put things back together in Irak again, while we go after Bin Lauden?" Crazy, but not beyond imagination at this stage of the catastrophe.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Those are the words of a liberal. What we call liberals these days are pretty shameful, they always want to quit, give up the fight and purchase peace at any price. They are even willing to live with dictators, and accept them as the lesser of two evils. Not Patrick Henry. With modern Liberals its always quit. "I think I can't! I think I can't Oh what's the use?"

DonPanic · 2006-10-18 13:46:52

LO

Just because one is not correct, does not make him a liar. Do you think George Bush knowing and deliberately led US troops into this quagmire? The liberals or the left always say two things about George Bush, one is that he's stupid and incompetant, and the other is that he is a liar. If he is a liar, that presupposes that he should know better and is not stupid. If he is stupid, that supposes that he does not know any better and is a mistake and not a lie. Now which is it?

He is a liar because he deliberately lied on WMD, falsely accused Iraq to be associated with Al Qeada, showed false evidences on so called biologic research lab trucs supposed to have been air snapshoted, even Colin Powel admitted the whole american accusation files at Iraq were a whole vacuum, bullsh*it !

I think the Iraq War was a success in the respect that it removed the threat of Saddam Hussein

Just because the life of 600000 iraqians, thoses of your boys, you don't care a dumb, all you want is to think you're right whatever reality on the ground is

Do you think George Bush knowing and deliberately led US troops into this quagmire?

He and its bright military advisors thought it would be an easy job and that a military unwished occupation would be greeted with flowers

One can be at the same time a liar and a stupid ape, one doesn't prevent the other.

If George Bush wanted to get him, he would have to send US troops into the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan, but they Pakistan government won't give him permission as Pakistani sovereignty is a sensitive issue.

Since George Bush doesn't ask for permission to invade a country which isn't a real threat, he'd to have ask permission to act against a real threat ?
what a miserable argument !

Visit USA, its splendid lanscapes, its torture camps...

DonPanic · 2006-10-20 17:24:03

LO
Just because one is not correct, does not make him a liar. Do you think George Bush knowing and deliberately led US troops into this quagmire? The liberals or the left always say two things about George Bush, one is that he's stupid and incompetant, and the other is that he is a liar. If he is a liar, that presupposes that he should know better and is not stupid. If he is stupid, that supposes that he does not know any better and is a mistake and not a lie. Now which is it?
He is a liar because he deliberately lied on WMD, falsely accused Iraq to be associated with Al Qeada, showed false evidences on so called biologic research lab trucs supposed to have been air snapshoted, even Colin Powel admitted the whole american accusation files at Iraq were a whole vacuum, bullsh*it !
I think the Iraq War was a success in the respect that it removed the threat of Saddam Hussein
Just because the life of 600000 iraqians, thoses of your boys, you don't care a dime
, all you want is to think you're right whatever reality on the ground is
Do you think George Bush knowing and deliberately led US troops into this quagmire?
He and its bright military advisors thought it would be an easy job and that a military unwished occupation would be greeted with flowers
One can be at the same time a liar and a stupid ape, one doesn't prevent the other.

If George Bush wanted to get him, he would have to send US troops into the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan, but they Pakistan government won't give him permission as Pakistani sovereignty is a sensitive issue.
Since George Bush doesn't ask for permission to invade a country which isn't a real threat, he'd to have ask permission to act against a real threat ?
what a miserable argument !

Visit USA, its splendid lanscapes, its torture camps...

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

Gennaro · 2006-10-22 19:47:08

There might be some point in watching this film:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ose+change

SpaceNut · 2020-11-27 17:27:21

The US is getting closer to closing the chapter which started so long ago with some not long enough as Egyptian named Adel Abdel Bary, 60, was about to be released after 21 years in prison.
AlQaeda Terrorist Leaves Prison, Victims’ Families Relive the Pain convicted in the embassy bombings plot known to be let out of prison, outside of cooperating witnesses.

Some of the men charged in the conspiracy, including Osama bin Laden, were killed by the United States or its allies. Seven conspirators are serving life sentences.
But Mr. Bary, now jailed in the custody of U.S. immigration authorities, has finished his sentence and is expected to be deported to Britain, his last place of residence, court papers show.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-08-08 11:30:33

B-52s lead new US airpower onslaught to stop Taliban advances in Afghanistan

https://nypost.com/2021/08/07/b-52s-lea … ghanistan/

US B-52 Bombers, Gunships Sent into Action in Afghanistan in Attempt to Stop Taliban Advance on Key Cities

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 … ities.html

Taliban seize symbolic victory with capture of Kunduz

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ … -of-kunduz

SpaceNut · 2021-08-08 15:48:57

Walking away Afghanistan was a mistake just because we thought we should leave the nation when the reason for going there was the Taliban which struck out at the US in 2001. The nation that came to be under the US democracy was only possible if the Taliban went away but they did not and will not honor any treaties that were made. Its clear that the pull out has caused a new civil war with in the nation of Afghanistan.

kbd512 · 2021-08-08 16:57:46

SpaceNut,

The people living in Afghanistan will be at war with each other for so long as there are people living there. They were warring tribes before the US arrived, they were still warring tribes while we were there, and they'll be warring tribes long after the US leaves. We're not going to influence the behavior of the people living there, except through threat of overwhelming force, so there's no point to our troops staying there. Ironically, Iraq was and is a very different place, and the people living there did want to live in freedom from tyrants, so while untold blood and treasure was spent there as well, the end result is that Iraq at least has a chance at self-governance and freedom from tyranny. Despite all assertions to the contrary, we cannot change the hearts and minds of people through force, bribery, or gift. If the majority of people feel its in their best interest to live peaceably, then they will. If not, then they won't. It's always been that simple.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-08-13 13:50:27

UN chief urges Taliban to halt Afghan offensive, begin negotiations to avert prolonged civil war
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-w … story.html

Trump blames Biden for 'unacceptable' Taliban surge in Afghanistan
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/t … an-2109291

Biden wants out but the US is likely to maintain some kind of eye on Afghanistan, satellites, drones, raids across border and shadow military and intelligence presence but they did not expect areas to fall so fast?? Maybe its not just the USA that is the problem maybe in a ways Afghanistan failed itself.
I can agree with critics, it seems like an endless place to burn resources, time and waste money, why waste American money or life on something that will have no longer term goals and maybe it is going to be a bad curse forgotten place, maybe it will always have warlords or bandits or islamists killing other jihadists and other innocents caught up in war?

I understand the need to pull out of Afghanistan, its mostly been a graveyard for Empires so how long is the USA supposed to be World Police Force and be Military-Cops backed by Navy and Airforce in some far away land with no clear objective. Since Bush Jnr went in many others Obama and Trump have tried to pull out.
The USSR also failed to make Afghans part of their Communist Empire, it was a Coldwar battle ground and the Soviet military expedition ending in failure. So maybe Biden just doesn't want viral pix going viral on twitter or bitchute or film on facebook of America trying to exit in a panic, this is why Troops now go back in to allow a more organized pull out?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-10-14 23:15:39

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#52 2006-10-15 00:42:14

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#53 2006-10-15 07:33:55

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#54 2006-10-15 08:42:34

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#55 2006-10-15 09:42:13

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#56 2006-10-15 19:06:40

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#57 2006-10-15 19:58:19

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#58 2006-10-16 01:20:35

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#59 2006-10-16 01:29:53

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#60 2006-10-16 01:31:34

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#61 2006-10-16 03:01:03

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#62 2006-10-16 09:36:24

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#63 2006-10-16 12:40:48

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#64 2006-10-17 15:00:43

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#65 2006-10-17 20:07:47

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#66 2006-10-18 00:51:18

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#67 2006-10-18 11:24:00

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#68 2006-10-18 13:46:52

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#69 2006-10-20 17:24:03

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#70 2006-10-22 19:47:08

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#71 2020-11-27 17:27:21

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#72 2021-08-08 11:30:33

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#73 2021-08-08 15:48:57

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#74 2021-08-08 16:57:46

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#75 2021-08-13 13:50:27

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Board footer