 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
Back to the future
We all hoped that the war in Iraq was over but it seems it is back to the war on terror
Baghdad blasts 'kill 64, injure 600' | News.com.au Top stories | News.com.au The people of Iraq are from from being able to govern themselves and yet it seems the only realistic alternative is to let them do it |
||||
|
||||
|
There was some voices a while ago that suggested we should open negotiations up with the taliban I have no idea if it would work, but all I can say is this After growing up with the threat of bombings and shootings with the IRA for all of my younger life, terrorism usually creates a stalemate The only way the IRA and the British Government were going to resolve the issue is through talking It has taken along time, and is still ongoing, but at least the bombings have stopped I don't know if Iraq is at that point yet, but until they are, the bombings in my opinon will continue |
||||
|
||||
|
Steve it took a lot longer than eight years to get to the point of talking in Ireland and the Irish weren't quite as fanatical as the Muslims, besides the irish had an army of occupation to focus on too. That has now been removed in iraq and they have only their old enmities to work out
|
||||
|
||||
|
At present, oil is now being or about to be pumped by western comppanies, this will bring guaranteed payments to the Iraq Government by companies that aren't generally interested in being dodgy The new cash will help them to install and maintain a better infracture, on top of what we have put in place The forces in Iraq are and will continue to be trained by our nations, and so educated in the best techniques available Support will be given when ever necessary as long the government will continue to follow the system that was agreed upon All of this will help the iraqs' to build up a country that has been ripped apart None of this will stop the fanatics who think coward bombings against innocent people will help their cause Iraq will continue to fight the terrorists, and the terrorists will continue to fight, all of which will end in stalemate At this point, talking will commence This is why terrorists are so effective, you cannot beat them as everyone you kill you create another as the person you killed was somebodys son, brother, father and as such it is an inevitable cycle Its not an army, or navy, that can be destroyed on the field of battle, stalemate is the only conclusion to a terrorism campaign These issues in Iraq, and afghanistan will take a generation or two to be sorted out |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by phlanx
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Catsmine
As regards the mountain regions involved around Afgahanistan and Pakistan, that's who knows if ever, but the main threat is from the taliban and that will take time to sort out |
||||
|
||||
|
Clete ,they are governing themselves. VI day should've been declared last year when all the formalities were ironed out. The bombing this weekend was not AQ and not insurgency. It was gangland violent "the Chicago way" . Coaltion troops are there at the disposal of the government if they request it. Otherwise they take the lead in all counter-insurgency/anti-terrorism-security operations. USA today greatly over simplifies the situation .But I'll post their report anyway. U.S. troops in Iraq have time on hands - USATODAY.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Here Washington Compost's David Ignatius take on the mass homicide attack . Note that if President Bush were still in office the headline would read :Worst day of violence shows President's policy a failure .....
But since President BO is in charge the article waxes positive and by default portrays a more honest assessment than they would normally publish.
resilient Baghdad on a day of horror
By David Ignatius Monday, October 26, 2009 BAGHDAD From the air Sunday morning, this looked like a city restored. You could see paddle boats skimming the pond at Zawra Park, and go-karts and waterslides. And in every direction, new schools and soccer fields and bustling warehouses -- all taking shape under the canopy of the new Iraq. But down below, it turned out to be a morning from hell. Terrorists exploded two massive car bombs at the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad provincial administration, killing more than 100 and wounding more than 500. It was the worst day of violence this year, and it was, as the terrorists intended, a reminder of the fragility of Iraqi security. Around the time the bombers struck, I was flying over the city in a Black Hawk helicopter with Gen. David Petraeus. As commander of U.S. forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2008, he helped restore stability here. He was returning Sunday as Centcom commander, and he decided on his way in from the airport to conduct one of his careening airborne tours of the city, which he used to make so frequently that the helicopter pilots gave them the code name "Purple Rain." The signs of recovery seemed to be everywhere. "See, the houses are occupied again," Petraeus said, pointing to a neighborhood that several years ago was a virtual ghost town. "Always good to see a crane," he said, motioning to a new construction site. "Traffic jam, that's good to see." Petraeus pointed out the evidence of normality -- the schools, the police stations, the sports stadiums, the bus and train stations, the parks and markets and riverside restaurants. And, to be honest, the city, seen in panorama, reminded me of the Baghdad I first visited in 1981, big and burly and, for an Arab city, fairly well organized. We didn't learn about the horrific bombings until we landed in the Green Zone. I guess that tells you something about the difference between life, close up, and what you see from several hundred feet. On the ground, all those freshly painted new ministries and bustling Baghdadis are, to the terrorists, just so many targets. When the bombs exploded, an Iraqi friend told me later, the cellphone system temporarily crashed, as people frantically called to see if their loved ones were safe. Foreigners may forget that, when they see the endless Baghdad carnage on television, Iraqis are people just like everyone else; they love their spouses and children and grandparents just as much as you and I do. When service went back to normal, my friend said, he had 30 text messages asking if he was all right. While Petraeus was off visiting officials, I had lunch with two Iraqi friends at the Al-Rashid Hotel. The last time I had eaten there was in October 2003, when I was traveling with Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense. That was the famous trip when the Al-Rashid was hit by rockets; I watched them arc toward the hotel from a blue cart several hundred yards away. For many people, that was a day when a new darkness enveloped the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But my Iraqi friends were surprisingly upbeat about the future, even after Sunday's terrible bombings. "In every sector, Iraq is coming back to its normal mode," said one. "There is no way it will slip back," insisted the other. I wondered at their confidence on such a day, but that is part of the Iraqi toughness. Rather than talking about the bombings, we talked politics. My friends sharply criticized the incumbent prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. But as we were debating, one turned to me with a smile: "Here we are talking about who will run the government after the elections. Could you do that in any other country in the Arab world?" As night fell, Petraeus and his party flew to Camp Victory, near the airport. "Baghdad can be a cruel place," he told me. "You have to keep a grip on your hopes." But as the Black Hawk skimmed over the city, Baghdad seemed to be teeming again, despite the morning's events. Petraeus surveyed the cityscape at night. "People are back out in the parks," he said. "All the lights are on, cars are driving around." I asked later if he thought Sunday's violence would lead people to request that American troops return to the cities, and he shook his head: "Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraqis will respond to this." washingtonpost.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Phlanx, I'm no expert on IRA/British affairs. But I suspect that before the IRA was willing to sit down at the table, the British police and military had to create an environment in which the IRA was taking enough casualties to make peace seem to be a better alternative. They had to make the cost to the IRA so high that peace was preferable to continued terrorist operations. Am I right? And there is a major difference between IRA terrorists and Jihadi terrorists. The IRA terrorists tended not to be suiciders. They didn't believe that they needed to DIE for the cause... they preferred, in fact, to live if they could. The Muslim terrorists, by contrast, WANT to die for their cause. The type of negotiating that you are talking about works if both sides would prefer to live. How do you negotiate with a terrorist group that prefers DEATH to life? When the Brits sat down with the IRA leadership, it was with the understanding that BOTH SIDES would prefer that the violence end, and that people on both sides stop dying. But there can be no such understanding with Muslim Jihadis, because they DON'T prefer to end the violence and stop the death. Their death for the "cause" is what gets them into heaven. The only way that we can create conditions for meaningful negotiation would be to make the cost of terrorism so high that they see no choice but to negotiate. Since they don't mind dying for the cause, there is no way to create that environment. The only alternative is to wipe out so many of the terrorists that they become to weak to be anything more than a minor problem. You can't wipe them out completely... there will always be ONE that escapes. But you can eliminate so many of them that they become too weak to be a major force in the area. You can, at the same time, build up your own strength so that fighting them becomes a winning proposition every time you face them. In short, the only way to defeat MIDDLE EASTERN terrorism is by dominating them through overwhelming force and making them too weak to fight back. Negotiation is not a viable option as it was with the IRA. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Flight of famcy
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
I understand that both the solutions might work in certain circumstance, militant populations have had to be subdued in a number of places. Don't you see that domination is the problem, this is what they react to
Therefore the only solution to bring peace to the region is one causes the costs of terrorism to be HIGHER than the costs of peace. Peace through strength. Or as the Book of Psalms says: "G-d will give His nation strength, G-d will Bless His nation with peace." Only through strength can peace be achieved. It's a lesson as old as the Bible, learned on the same sands over which Arabs and Jews continue to fight today. The lesson is as applicable today as it was then. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2053105]Well, yes. And I've made my position on this clear long ago. I do support it. And the fact that every time Israel has done it, instances of terrorist attacks have DECREASED should prove its effectiveness.
Oh yeah - real effective, it is just a question that it takes time for them to reorganise before they go at it again They have been fighting each other now for ages, and as such the argument is really just glitter over the facts, both sides want revenge for the other side killing a family member of theirs Until both sides either generally stop and allow mediation to happen and for both sides to recognise each other, than this will continue - flashing up every few years Elliot don't you realise that Gazans have nothing to loose and they will fight to the very last man if they are forced to That is called genocide, if you flex your strength over a weaker side to the point of wiping them out culturally, the next step is The Hague, where funnily enough Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic trial has started today for exactly that act |
||||
|
||||
|
Weak?
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yes the difference between efficient and effective, what was done in Gaza was effective it appears, rocket attacks have decreased, very efficient, but has it solved the problem. The root cause remains. Willthe same tactics give Pakistan peace with the Taliban, probably not. Will the same tactics bring peace to Afghanistan. There are not enough troops to tacle the militants in a confined space and gain a decisive victory. All any of these campaigns has demonstrated is that the actual numbers of combatants might be few.
Sure I do. However, what I see is that when they perceive WEAKNESS they attack. When they perceive STRENGTH, they back off. It's easy to tell the world to not dominate the Palestinians or the other Muslim terrorist groups when you are not in the line of fire. But what the world has seen over and over again is this pattern of strength vs. weakness. Which means that the way to prevent violence is through a show superior strength.
Elliot The Taliban don't attack US forces because they think they are weak, they know that they cannot win in open battle, but they hope to convince the US to give up as they saw the Russians give up. The US sent the signal that Afghanistan was a low priority and the Taliban took heart. We are no longer in the position where the Afghanis face a battalion or two as they did with the British, but there are large numbers of disaffected Afghani's from which to recruit. This is the same situation we saw played out with the Palestinians, years of living in displaced peoples camps bred a population of terrorists. |
||||
|
||||
|
[quote=phlanx;2053150]
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Having served in the Israeli military for a short time, I can tell you that it just ain't true. In fact, Israel spent the period between 1967 and 1987 building the infrastructure of the Palestinians... electricity, water system, sewer system, roads, schools, libraries... all paid for with Israeli money. That period was generally a fairly peaceful time for Israeli and the Palestinians. There were occaisional incidents, but generally, it was peaceful. Then in 1987 the first Intifada hit. The Palestinians started attacking Jews living in Israel. Their stated goal was to ELIMINATE EVERY JEW FROM ISRAEL and take it over in its entirety. THEIR GOAL was genocide. Israel fought back. Not with the intent of destroying the Palestinians, but rather with the intent of getting them to back off. The Israelis tried "non-lethal" methods of fighting back... tear gas, rubber bullets, stun grenades. None of it worked, and because Israel had showed that it was willing to be merciful, it resulted in INCREASED TERRORIST ATTACKS by the Palestinians against Israel. Between 1987 and 1992 there were literally HUNDREDS of suicide bombings against Israel, which resulted in the deaths of some of my friends. And STILL Israel refused to take lethal action... the invaded the Palestinian territories, but they made sure to limit civilian casualties, and instead knocked down empty houses. And all the time, Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Perez continued to negotiate in good faith for peace... agreeing in the midst of all the terrorist attacks and violence to give up large tracts of Israeli land in the West Bank, including Israeli cities in the Hebron area. This resulted in the Oslo Accords, signed by Perez, Rabin and Arafat... and immediately violated by Arafat. Then came the Whye Accords, also signed, and also violated by Arafat. And every time a peace agreement was signed, the Intifada, the violence, the terrorist attacks would increase... because Arafat and the Palestinians saw weakness in such attempts at peace. Between 2000 and now, there have been literally THOUSANDS of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, because such peace attempts were seen as weakness. For almost two decades, Israel tried again and again to negotiate for peace. In 2005, without any requirement to do so, Israel UNILATERALLY disengaged from Gaza, removing tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes. The result was that the mortars and rockets were moved to the new border, and Israel has continued to be bombed, day in and day out for the past 4 years. Since 2000, through January 2009, Israel has suffered over 8600 missile and rocket and mortar attacks from lands that it gave up in the attempt to negotiate for peace. So... every time that Israel has taken the "high road" and attempted to attain peace, it has been attacked. And every time that they have fought back against such attacks, the attacks were silenced for a time. What would you have Israel do? You are worried about Israel overreacting in their attempts to suppress these attacks? What constitutes "overreaction" after 8600 missile attacks? Do you really equate the destruction of empty buildings in Gaza with "genocide"? And what of the PA's attempts and stated goal to eradicate all Jews from Israel? What about the genocide of Jews? Do you really equate how Israel has acted with the Palestinians with genocide? Unilateral pullouts, peace agreements signed that were violated by their enemies, attempts to negotiate new agreements after those violations occurred... does that sound like genocide to you? Come on, Phlanx... you are too intelligent to fall for UN propaganda and BBC talking points. I'm not saying that Israeli soldiers haven't over-reacted at times. They have. But Israel punishes such violations, they don't make them policy. Whereas the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews and complete takeover of the land is the stated goal of the PA, and continues to be part of the Palestinian Authority's (originally the PLO) charter. It has never been recanted or changed, and neither have their actions changed. So before you go bandying about terms like "genocide" and applying it to the actions of the Israelis, I suggest that you look at the facts on the ground rather than the UN talking points. Genocide is the LAST thing going on in the PA. I suggest that you listen to Bibi Netanyahu's recent speech to the UN. He argues the case better than I ever could, and is well-armed with the facts to back it up. On a personal note (not speaking from the point of view of Israel, but merely for myself), if knocking down a few empty houses is what it takes to stop the rocket attacks, then I say go for it. And if the Palestinians in Gaza are willing to fight to the last man, as you say... I'm willing to oblige them. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
I have to say, that regardless of what outcomes either side wants, if your neighbours start to throw rockets at you, you have to go round a kick them in the butt - I think everybody would agree that you can't let any country attack you without a rsponse Nice reading Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello clete: There are some on this board, who declared victory in Iraq. They were wrong. There's really nothing more to say about that. Ok, I'll say something. The dufus broke it sooooo badly, that I'm not sure if it'll get fixed in my lifetime... Same thing with Afghanistan... War is NOT the way to defeat terrorism. We should have learned that by now. What was it, 19 people attacked us, and THIS is our response?? Trillions and trillions of $$$'s, lots of dead Americans and many many more dead Muslims. Dude! This ain't it. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
I don't think you can beat teroorism, only reason with it, by vitue of its nature, it will not stop until the last man is dead which is never going to happen, so both sides have to get sick of fighting before talks can begin |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
With all the breadth of experience throughout the world in dealing with terrorists... all the effective methods and all the ineffective methods that we have seen used all over the world in all sorts of circumstances... all the historical information available at our fingertips... what is the best way to defeat terrorism? Please, enlighten us. Elliot |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
I like him BUT in the future
[ 6 Answers ]
OK I know I'm like the biggest I LOVE THE SINGLE LIFE people but hey a girl can date can't she OK so this guy I work with is really sweet I mean he is adorable and he drives me home when we do late night closes and we have hundreds of things in common and we haven't had a full blown argument ...
My future
[ 4 Answers ]
:) Will I make it to the nfl?
Using future value of single amount, future value of annuity table.
[ 0 Answers ]
Hello, my question is how do you know when to use the Future of value of single amount table, and when to use the future value of annuity table?
Tell me about my future
[ 1 Answers ]
Hi, My name is sushma shetty, my birth date is 4th May 1986, time 5.20am ,day Sunday could u tel me about my future. Waiting for your reply Regards Sushma
View more questions Search
|
