[Grey Wolf]

Beowulf, I was being realistic.

1. The Ottoman Empire's decline and fall stripped the area of all semblance of political stability.  It's territories were then given to France and Britain during the Treaty of Versailles.  After they both pulled out following World War II, assorted governments have come into power, either taking advantage of the power vaccum (an example would be Iraq) or established by one of the departing powers (Israel was partially established by Britain).

2. American Imperialism in the era of T. Roosevelt: Basically, Bush's current policy is an expansion of the Roosevelt Corrolary, which was Roosevelt stating that he felt the U.S. had the right to intervene in any affair which affected their interests.

3. British Imperialism: Basically, this part is Britain pulling out of Asia Minor following World War II. The absence of a world power created the power vaccuum (see point 1).

4. People not understanding cause and effect: Both sides having false predictions of the effect of their actions. The terrorists thinking that their actions will scare the United States away, the United States thinking invading countries will make the people in the surrounding countries like us more, etc.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


Yes, but you have to understand, that terrorists are not simply people who like blowing things up. What they do, they do for a reason. Every terrorist action is done because someone believes they are being oppressed. I can completely understand why the Iraqi people are pissed at the US. If someone invaded your country, would you just roll over. Think of it this way. If China one day decided to invade the US, and then occupy it for a period of time, would the US population just take it? No way, they would fight tooth and nail. Thats exactly what the Iraqis are doing. What I'm trying to do is to show that there is no "bad guys" and "good guys". If terrorism is defined as the killing of innocents, then the US is certainly one of the world's largest terrorit states. Between 10,000 and 15,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the invasion. And yet, no one even thinks of making them accountable for that.

I can actually see why the Palestine Hote; and the Oil Ministry were targets. The Palestine hotel is a place where many US military and political leaders stay. By having high ranking political figures in the hotel, that makes it a semi legitimate target. And the Oil Ministry, well that one is kind of obvious.

You're forgetting the suicide attacks on aid agencies like the Un & red cross.... plus the existance of foreign terrorists (Syrian papers have been found on suicide bombers IIRC, to give an example)

There is obviously both terrorist groups (al-Queda cells or associates) as well as the remnants of the Baathist regime launching guerilla attacks - and there is a distinction between the targets and methods of both.

But I think it's totally wrong to say the majority of Iraqi's are fighting tooth and nail - only a few loyalists.  At the moment Iraq is still stabilising - most of the civillians are still prepared to wait a bit before truly rebelling.   If they were fighting / resisting, there'd be thousands of coalition bodybags by now, not hundreds.

[Stryke 9]

Aldo: Not necessarily. Historically, no matter what the situation, it's almost always been the vast minority of people who actually went and did anything about it. The extent of the conflicts here is pretty close to as bad as it gets. And if those guys do ever get organized, so that rather than basically having a buncha random collections of the local yokels going out and blowing **** up when they feel like it they've got a proper guerilla army, the bodycount will climb up towards the thousands quite rapidly.

As many Saddam-oriented conspiracy theories as Bush likes to crank out, really that's what we're seeing right now- random politically-motivated attacks by individuals and small groups, not part of some larger plan. There might be some coordinated activity in there, but not on a very large scale, and it's lost in all the noise of the disorganized ****e. And that's the real reason it's not gonna stop any time soon- short of wiping out the civilian populace wholesale, there's no effective way to ferret out the militant ones, because they are just parts of the civilian populace.

It's rather the situation of a tied donkey and a child with a stick. Neither can be reasonably expected to hurt each other in any significant way, for different and rather obvious reasons- except in this situation neither is ever going to seriously consider the possibility of a peaceful resolution, so the whole deal will basically go on until the next world war or coup (in the US or at least two significant European nations).

[01010]

I'm just curious, have Al-Quaeda ever stated what they desire for a peaceful resolution to their terror campaign?

[StratComm]

Stated: The death of every American man , woman, and child, and of all pro-reform, anti-arab-fundamentalist politicians and governmental supporters in the world.  In short, they set no conditions for an ultimate end for the "need" for their existance.  

Reality: Perhaps they would stop though if all outside influence vanished from the Middle East, something that is not about to happen nor is necessarily favored by most people that live there.  An end to military occupation of Muslim lands by non-muslim nations would go a long way toward cutting off their ground-level support though, so that could be argued to be their ultimate goal.

EDIT: I refine that a little bit; they want the ouster of every pro-western government too, and that they would maintain even if western countries pulled out.

[01010]

I did read somewhere about a nation of Islam, but I think that was when I was looking at some fundamentalist christian websites so I took it with a grain of salt.

Thanks for the info, I must say they are an ambitious lot I'll give them that. Though to think that they could topple the entire set of western governments is maybe overstretching a touch.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by IceFire
Until one sides support exhausts itself and the remaining fighters find out that they are fighting for a cause nobody even cares about.

I don't mean to offend anyone and I apologise if I do, but Japan lasted until they got the nuke dropped on them.

[Rictor]

I believe that Islamic fundamentalists are very much like Chrisitan fundamentalists. I don't trust either of them. The only difference between Al-Queda and the Christian extremist right that is currently running the US is methods. Their goals are more or less the same.

Ideally, the Islamic fundamentalists would like to spread their religion to the whole world, volutarily is possible but forcefully if need be. Their aim to the exapnd what they percieve to be their empire. This is exactly what the bible-belters would like as well, though you'll never hear them admit it, since it brands them as "fanatics" in the eyes of the people who's support (or tolerance atleast) they need.

I am not against religion. I belive that all of the current religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc) are in essence good. They were created not as hostile and fanatical groups, but rather as peaceful and tolerant institutions. Whoever tries to use religion to justiry war, death etc is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the faith. That is why I believe that a religion should not be judged by its worst members but rather by its best ones.

__

Oh and, I don't see the resistance subsiding any time soon. Despite what Bush and Co. would have you believe, most of the resistance is home-grown. These are ordinary Iraqis fighting for their homeland. Yes, there are Islamic extremists in there, yes there are former Baathists in there, but they are a minority. They are, no doubt, pursuing thier own agendas in Iraq. A US inteligennce official (maybe a general, I forget) has just recently released a report saying that the majority of the resistance is indeed made up of the Iraqi people. I'll find the link to it and post that here.

__

Oh and, Setekh, I don't think that nukes are an option here. Nukes would not be tolerated by the international community. The US would commit political suicide if it were to use them. Mini-nukes are a different matter however, though I don't think those will be ready for use any time soon. I think that its a safe bet that the resistance will continue.

edit: excuse my terrible spelling

[Bobboau]

"Japan lasted until they got the nuke dropped on them"
we still have a few of those left


"the Christian extremist right that is currently running the US"
you don't live in here do you?

"most of the resistance is home-grown"
just curius, how do you know this?

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Bobboau

"the Christian extremist right that is currently running the US"
you don't live in here do you?
 

**** we can't even display a manger in a public place, while the jewish can display a menorah.  (equiv goes for muslims)

[01010]

I just love political correctness.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Bobboau

we still have a few of those left

The first time was semi-excusable, seeing as how the effects were unknow. But if really don't see how dropping a nuke on the civilian population of the country that you allegedly came to liberate is a morally defensible position. Unless ofcourse you claim that every last person in the country is a terrorist, and that dropping the nuke was ok, since they are dirty terrorist scum

Originally posted by Bobboau

you don't live in here do you?

No I don't live there. And unless you live in Washington and are heavily involved in politics, I don't see how living there would provide any better or more accurate a picture as to whats going on and who's running the show.  Half the top officials are born-again Christians, including the likes of Bush and Ashcroft.

Originally posted by Bobboau

"most of the resistance is home-grown"

Because almost every source aside from the US government says so. There have been many interviews with resistance members that have discussed just this. And these people say that they are nothing but ordinariy Iraqis. I tend to believe them. As well, there is a variety of news organizations on the ground who can confirm this, as well as members of the intelliegence community. Why would you disbelieve it? Is it so hard to imagine that people are fighting for an end to the occupation of their country?

[Bobboau]

the nuke thing was a joke

why would they be bombing UN, red cross, other aid workers, and other Iraqis rather than just our troops. why would they blow up power lines and water distribution centers (I can see why they would go after oil lines). why would they be trying to make life for the people of Iraq more miserable rather than just focusing on killing as many of us as they can.
if china invaded, I can tell you I would be after there heads, not our utilities, I wouldn't give a **** if they were fixing things.

also on that note of the US being invaded, if 8 years from now Bush is still in power and I don't want to get involved in any political debate for fear of the man comeing for me,
UK, please invade us, Bush would have truely become a tyranical dicatator, and I would want you to come in and help free us from is rein of idiotic doom, even if I was too afraid to say so at the time.

[vyper]

[q]morally defensible position[/q]

In a war of survival, moral positions are worthless and generally add to the risk of losing.

[Bobboau]

there is shooting at a shadowy figure who turns out to be a kid looking for food and then there's killing everyone, nukes are a last resort type of thing, and I don't see how we would need to use them in Iraq.

there was just an explosion in Afganistan,
does anyone still not see we are in World War 3?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]morally defensible position[/q]

In a war of survival, moral positions are worthless and generally add to the risk of losing.

1. That is so wrong. There a rules of war, and these rules exist for a good reason. To ensure that the civialian populations of a country are harmed as little as possible in wars. Perhaps if it was an all-out battle for the survival of our species or something, than yes - anything goes. But you can't claim that wars are not governed by a set of rules, or that these rules are inconsequential.

2. The survival of the US was not threatened by Japan in WW2. Neither is it threatened in Iraq today. So really, unless your very survival depends on it, the rules of war must be followed.

__

Bob: Isn't it pretty arrogant to claim that the US is currently engaged in WW3? I mean, it would have to be an international conflict with equal powers on both sides for it to be considered a World War. Two countries invading a more or less defenseless nation does not constitute a World War.  We are not in the midst of WW3 and I hope we never will be.

__

U.S. commander in Iraq says insurgency homegrown
As I've said before, there are foreign powers with their own agendas operating in Iraq, and it is they who are likely responsible for the attacks on the infrastructure. What I suspect is happening is that these groups are sabotaging the power, water etc in order to make live as uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, and thus turn their anger towards the US for not being able to secure these vital assets. And if I may say so, it seems to be working so far.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by 01010
I'm just curious, have Al-Quaeda ever stated what they desire for a peaceful resolution to their terror campaign?

The whole world being subject to their crazy-ass doctrine.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Setekh


I don't mean to offend anyone and I apologise if I do, but Japan lasted until they got the nuke dropped on them.

The Japanese have had a warrior tradition for over a thousand years. People are told throughout their lives how surrender is dishonorable and warriors should fight to the death or commit ritual suicide if they are in danger of being captured. Also, everyone was indoctrinated with the belief that Japan's enemies were evil savages who ate babies (I am not making this up). Iraq may have had the latter, but not the former. The loyalists and terrorists won't be quite as tenacious.

[vyper]

Originally posted by Rictor


1. That is so wrong. There a rules of war, and these rules exist for a good reason. To ensure that the civialian populations of a country are harmed as little as possible in wars. Perhaps if it was an all-out battle for the survival of our species or something, than yes - anything goes. But you can't claim that wars are not governed by a set of rules, or that these rules are inconsequential.

2. The survival of the US was not threatened by Japan in WW2. Neither is it threatened in Iraq today. So really, unless your very survival depends on it, the rules of war must be followed.

Well, I feel that we ARE in a war of survival. West against East, one ideology against another. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but only if they are seen as a credible threat by your enemy. Therefore, we must ensure that the enemy in this case (militant Islamic groups) understand we are willing to use all the power in our arsenal to win this war - to prove that they are not untouchable and that thier actions have consequences for thier own loved ones.

Also, I was not really referring to the bomb upon Japan. However, on that point - dropping the 2 bombs shortened the war and saved lives on the side of the country that dropped those bombs. That is the principle of warfare - to make your enemy surrender while sacrificing the least of your own people.

Please don't flame me anyone! :shifty:

[Rictor]

Originally posted by vyper


Well, I feel that we ARE in a war of survival. West against East, one ideology against another. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but only if they are seen as a credible threat by your enemy. Therefore, we must ensure that the enemy in this case (militant Islamic groups) understand we are willing to use all the power in our arsenal to win this war - to prove that they are not untouchable and that thier actions have consequences for thier own loved ones.

Sigh, ok here we go

1. What you have just stated shows a considerable amount of disregard for human life, or more accurately a disregard for human life that is not on "your side".

2. This is certainly not a war of East vs West. However much you would like to believe otherwise, there is no major difference in idealogy between an Iraqi and an American, or a Brit and a Japanese. It is much easier to fight against an idea instead of putting a face on the person. Notice how we have the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty etc. Nowhere along the way is it mentioned that these are people dying. These people have families, they go to church (or mosque or sinagouge(sp?)), these people are fighting and dying for what they believe in, just like every soldier, just like American soldiers. They are presented as a faceless, fanatical enemy, so that everyone can sleep easy at night.

A battle of East vs West is a GROSS oversimplification of the reality of the situation. At best. However, it is also plain inaccurate.Firstly, there is no unified "Eastern" ideology. Therefore, there is no single "East" front. Ideology is not determined by location. Secondly, even if there was a mysterious Eastern boogieman, he certainly does not present a credible threat to the "West". As a matter of fact, there is also no single "Western" idealogy. I don't see how any reasonable person could classify the turmoil going on in the world right now in terms of Good Guys vs Bad Guys, or as you put it; East vs West.

Originally posted by vyper

Also, I was not really referring to the bomb upon Japan. However, on that point - dropping the 2 bombs shortened the war and saved lives on the side of the country that dropped those bombs. That is the principle of warfare - to make your enemy surrender while sacrificing the least of your own people.

Please don't flame me anyone! :shifty:

Again, you fail to realise two things. All civilian lives are of equal value. The US killed several hundred thousand civilians (I'm not quite sure, but around half a million) in order to prevent the deaths of several thousands of its own soldiers. I honesly don't know you system of values, but from where I'm standing that action was criminal. Simply put, it was genocide. And I can think of no way to condone, justify or excuse the use of the A-Bomb in Japan. I view, and I will continue to view any country that trades foreign civilian lifes for the lifes of its own soldiers as an evil, criminal regime.

__

Just for the record, that wasn't a flame. Or if it was, it was not inteded to be one.

Peace out