| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 15 2004, 03:40 PM (472 Views) | |
| Adrian | Apr 18 2004, 02:42 AM Post #31 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Well, first I'd propose shutting down or influencing those nations that really do support terorism like Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Iran actually has a growing democracy movement; some "encouragement" might be in our interests. While the Taliban isn't the force it once was it's rebuilding and the warlords are up to their old tricks (this makes it just as much a breeding ground for terrorism as when the Taliban was at full power); let's actually put money and effort into forming a strong central gov't (this fighting terrorism on the cheap is ridiculous). Those are just some starts, I could list more if you'd like |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 18 2004, 03:06 AM Post #32 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Our involvement in these countries, will cause just as much unrest as a war in Iraqi, the people now fighting in Iraqi would go to any of those nations you mentioned and fight there as well. So I do not see any real difference in hitting those nations instead of Iraqi, and as some have pointed out Iraq did support terrorism. Its not a country that supports terrorism it’s the whole geographical region. Which means we need to work it form a strategically point of view over the entire area not a political one singling out countries. Or our involvement may set back the movement or destroy it all together because people will undoubtedly try to show our "encouragement" in a bad light. Like saying we are just trying to be imperialistic, we are only endorsing them so we can sell them coca cola. If this movement is growing nicely by its self, we would we want to go in their a possibly screw it up. You first say that both forms of governments (Taliban and warlords) are not good. But then you suggest throwing money at them to fix the problem. I think you should. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 18 2004, 11:14 AM Post #33 |
|
Admiral
|
The Sisko, No problem. One would have to read your posts in order to be mad at you--LOL! J/K. Welcome back. BTW, and on a more serious note, there are other posters who are far less polite than you ever were on your worst day, so no worries there.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 18 2004, 02:40 PM Post #34 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Nowhere did I state that was the point or the goal, so you are putting words in my mouth. What that is - the Arabs killing other Arabs - is a symptom of their failure to shake American resolve. They are killing Arabs in the hopes the Arabs that want a modern and open future will just give up and take the route of the Spanish.
That's totally illogical. You can't categorically say that. What it will eventually lead to, if they are given enough support, are people that want freedom taking matters into their own hands. They'll protect their families and protect their interests - they'll demand
No it does not. By what logic do you use to support such a statement? Arabs killing other Arabs, will not convinces the average Iraqi that these other Arabs attacking them is America's fault. It's the fault of those that are carrying out the attacks. What it can do is cause the moderate Iraqi to cower in fear, and from the fear, shun American assistance.
No, the point is, is to create an object model that shows Arabs a new way. Show the Arabs that America can either kill you by the thousands or help you by the millions. Killing the Islamists alone will not do the trick, you also have to build up the moderates to insure them that they are not alone.
You don't understand the analogy. Stalingrad and Midway were pivots which turned the course of those wars. Once the Battle at Midway was won, it wasn't a matter of if we'd win, it was a matter of when we'd win. Same applies to Stalingrad. - once the Germans lost Stalingrad the krauts were basically in retreat till the wars end.
No it's not. France was a colonial power trying to quell rebellion to that colonialism. America is not colonizing Iraq. PERIOD.
And guess what - we're not doing that! You analogy is flawed, for the sheer fact you try to cover all the nuances of the battle for Iraq with this one example, whereas my analogy only attempts to place the battles in Iraq in the overall context of winning or losing a wider war - The War on Terror. At this time, America forces in Iraq are almost an instrument of the Governing Council ... in many ways they really are. The current negotiations with the Sunni's and foreign fighters in Fallujah was instigated by the GC. And the biggest failures hasn't been America's, it's been Iraqi. If the Iraqi military that accompanied the Marines into Fallujah had not fallen apart, the Fallujah front would have been stamped out immediately. More and more, the GC and a newly created Iraqi army, are supposed to take care of these insurgent forces. al-Sadr is a different story. He's backed by the Mullah's in Iran. Iran's fingerprints are all over this and no one should be surprised! And no one should be surprised that Shiites and Sunnis are working together elsewhere, so why wouldn't they work together here? Case in point, Hezbollah (a Shiite group) is supported by both Syria (a Sunni nation) and Iran (a Shiite nation). As well, Hamas (a Sunni group) is supported by Syria (a Sunni nation) and Iran (a Shiite nation). I for one, think that Iran and Syria are on the short list for as countries requiring immediate action. I think the US, by listing all greivances, ought to formally declare war on the terrorist organizations al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and all splinter groups as well as the countries Syria, Iran and North Korea. I think it needs to be done as part of the War on Terror. For the most part, absolutely nothing will happen to these nations, because the conflict will be settled diplomatically. These nations must be shown we're not messing around, and they must know what is expected of them. One thing is for certain, each nation would know where they stand with America. And if America attacks a North Korean ship headed to the Middle East, then they'll know why and the world will know why. If the United States destroys a training camp in Iran or Syria - they'll also know why. As for the rest of the world - allies need to be declared. Just who's side are you on? Yes, are you with us or against us. A demarcation - a line if you will - needs to be established. Each nation should choose it's side and then people need to line it up accordingly. If you don't like the West and the United States, then leave - go to an enemy nation. Those stuck in an enemy nation that want to come to the West; they're welcome to emigrate. It doesn't matter who's President - Sept. 11th happened and it was a long time coming. Negotiating with these people will not change their goals and ambitions. History is truly repeating itself.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:13 PM Jul 11