Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz and the Iraq War


Recommended Posts

Craig, there's plenty of historical evidence that a more reasoned response than the one Bush orchestrated would have worked much better. Take the 'Anarchist' terrorist attacks in the first decade of the 20th century. When they actually happened, the various police forces of Europe were well equipped to deal with the actual attacks. It was only when idiots of the Bush calibre (in this case the Austro-Hungarians) got going that disproportionate responses led to catastrophe.

Bin Laden certainly knew his US psychology: he knew that a very cheap operation would result in the US giving him the kind of over-the-top response he needed to galvanise his Muslim constituents. It's a sign of how protected the US has actually been from what's been going on all over the world for centuries. It's just a shame that Blair got involved with such naive and delusional people. It's always been very tempting to think that you can screw other people around from afar without suffering any consequences at all, but it just doesn't accord with reality.

Tim, 'nuke Hanoi'! Do me a favour! The US weren't the only people with nuclear weapons at the time, you know. And the population of Vietnam at the time was around 50 million, if I remember correctly. And that was 50 million people who'd been living under war conditions since the early 1940s. Another of the US delusions, I'm afraid, to think that that was a viable policy.

Lets deal with RECENT history. Your "more reasoned response" was a miserable failure. The lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in the attacks of 9/11. Please tell me why more of the same would have changed the current situation? And the fact that others in the world are willing to bury the dead and move on...a sure sign of weakness of will if you ask me...is not our problem.

And you are wrong about the what Bin Laden actually got for his efforts and what our response has brought...recent polls of Muslims are finding that they are REJECTING radical Islam in droves. Seems they are less willing to die for the cause now than before we went on the attack.

Sorry but your "more of the same" is a proven failed policy.

"...lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in...9/11"

Perhaps a more measured response (better policy?) would of been a tactical battlefield nuke perhaps? Capital of Saudi Arabia (you guessed it I can't spell it) or Medina, Mecca during the Haj? Certainly would of got the Muslim faith attention as well as the Vatican's -- but that's another story.

Not that I disagree with you assessment but I'm curious what those from mid-America, the Christian conservative breadbasket if you will, think about such a alternative response...

btw, lobbing 70-90 cruise missles announced BClinton's intentions, I'm sure he was advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

These recent polls, who sponsored them?

A few nukes would have made an impression to be sure. What exactly were Clintons intentions? A little wag the dog? Bill would have NEVER put boots on the ground.

The poll was a Pew poll, and while I'm not a big fan of polls, it was instructional.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19934792/

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Craig, there's plenty of historical evidence that a more reasoned response than the one Bush orchestrated would have worked much better. Take the 'Anarchist' terrorist attacks in the first decade of the 20th century. When they actually happened, the various police forces of Europe were well equipped to deal with the actual attacks. It was only when idiots of the Bush calibre (in this case the Austro-Hungarians) got going that disproportionate responses led to catastrophe.

Bin Laden certainly knew his US psychology: he knew that a very cheap operation would result in the US giving him the kind of over-the-top response he needed to galvanise his Muslim constituents. It's a sign of how protected the US has actually been from what's been going on all over the world for centuries. It's just a shame that Blair got involved with such naive and delusional people. It's always been very tempting to think that you can screw other people around from afar without suffering any consequences at all, but it just doesn't accord with reality.

Tim, 'nuke Hanoi'! Do me a favour! The US weren't the only people with nuclear weapons at the time, you know. And the population of Vietnam at the time was around 50 million, if I remember correctly. And that was 50 million people who'd been living under war conditions since the early 1940s. Another of the US delusions, I'm afraid, to think that that was a viable policy.

Lets deal with RECENT history. Your "more reasoned response" was a miserable failure. The lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in the attacks of 9/11. Please tell me why more of the same would have changed the current situation? And the fact that others in the world are willing to bury the dead and move on...a sure sign of weakness of will if you ask me...is not our problem.

And you are wrong about the what Bin Laden actually got for his efforts and what our response has brought...recent polls of Muslims are finding that they are REJECTING radical Islam in droves. Seems they are less willing to die for the cause now than before we went on the attack.

Sorry but your "more of the same" is a proven failed policy.

"...lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in...9/11"

Perhaps a more measured response (better policy?) would of been a tactical battlefield nuke perhaps? Capital of Saudi Arabia (you guessed it I can't spell it) or Medina, Mecca during the Haj? Certainly would of got the Muslim faith attention as well as the Vatican's -- but that's another story.

Not that I disagree with you assessment but I'm curious what those from mid-America, the Christian conservative breadbasket if you will, think about such a alternative response...

btw, lobbing 70-90 cruise missles announced BClinton's intentions, I'm sure he was advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

These recent polls, who sponsored them?

A few nukes would have made an impression to be sure. What exactly were Clintons intentions? A little wag the dog? Bill would have NEVER put boots on the ground.

The poll was a Pew poll, and while I'm not a big fan of polls, it was instructional.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19934792/

nukes tactical or otherwise certainly would make an impression. What about those mid-America, conservative breadbasket types, would they buy it? could the GOP-NEOCONS sell it? Those neocons have certainly disappeared from Cable TV (most notably FOX_CRAP-Cable TV) Could they (the breadbasket) or WOULD they consider the thought of one puppies going off in say, Indianapolis, Indiana?

Now we know we can light a few off, we understand the consequences, we've done it under wartime conditions. Your impression of where our military could/would we set off a few tactical nukes. And the net positives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig, there's plenty of historical evidence that a more reasoned response than the one Bush orchestrated would have worked much better. Take the 'Anarchist' terrorist attacks in the first decade of the 20th century. When they actually happened, the various police forces of Europe were well equipped to deal with the actual attacks. It was only when idiots of the Bush calibre (in this case the Austro-Hungarians) got going that disproportionate responses led to catastrophe.

Bin Laden certainly knew his US psychology: he knew that a very cheap operation would result in the US giving him the kind of over-the-top response he needed to galvanise his Muslim constituents. It's a sign of how protected the US has actually been from what's been going on all over the world for centuries. It's just a shame that Blair got involved with such naive and delusional people. It's always been very tempting to think that you can screw other people around from afar without suffering any consequences at all, but it just doesn't accord with reality.

Tim, 'nuke Hanoi'! Do me a favour! The US weren't the only people with nuclear weapons at the time, you know. And the population of Vietnam at the time was around 50 million, if I remember correctly. And that was 50 million people who'd been living under war conditions since the early 1940s. Another of the US delusions, I'm afraid, to think that that was a viable policy.

Lets deal with RECENT history. Your "more reasoned response" was a miserable failure. The lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in the attacks of 9/11. Please tell me why more of the same would have changed the current situation? And the fact that others in the world are willing to bury the dead and move on...a sure sign of weakness of will if you ask me...is not our problem.

And you are wrong about the what Bin Laden actually got for his efforts and what our response has brought...recent polls of Muslims are finding that they are REJECTING radical Islam in droves. Seems they are less willing to die for the cause now than before we went on the attack.

Sorry but your "more of the same" is a proven failed policy.

"...lack of direct and HARSH action resulted in...9/11"

Perhaps a more measured response (better policy?) would of been a tactical battlefield nuke perhaps? Capital of Saudi Arabia (you guessed it I can't spell it) or Medina, Mecca during the Haj? Certainly would of got the Muslim faith attention as well as the Vatican's -- but that's another story.

Not that I disagree with you assessment but I'm curious what those from mid-America, the Christian conservative breadbasket if you will, think about such a alternative response...

btw, lobbing 70-90 cruise missles announced BClinton's intentions, I'm sure he was advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

These recent polls, who sponsored them?

A few nukes would have made an impression to be sure. What exactly were Clintons intentions? A little wag the dog? Bill would have NEVER put boots on the ground.

The poll was a Pew poll, and while I'm not a big fan of polls, it was instructional.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19934792/

nukes tactical or otherwise certainly would make an impression. What about those mid-America, conservative breadbasket types, would they buy it? could the GOP-NEOCONS sell it? Those neocons have certainly disappeared from Cable TV (most notably FOX_CRAP-Cable TV) Could they (the breadbasket) or WOULD they consider the thought of one puppies going off in say, Indianapolis, Indiana?

Now we know we can light a few off, we understand the consequences, we've done it under wartime conditions. Your impression of where our military could/would we set off a few tactical nukes. And the net positives?

I think it would be a very hard sell in the current political climate. A far better approach, IMO, is to simply inform the world that the next attack on American soil results in a nuke to Mecca, regardless of who did the deed. But again I'm not sure the current political climate would allow it nor do I believe that the enemy still thinks we have the will to do what is required. Those days are gone I'm afraid and we are the worse for it. Bin Laden just might have been right, we don't seem to have the stomach for a long fight. Now back to Big Brother and American Idol.

Of course a dirty bomb in say Indy would certainly change the climate don't you think?

Nukes are a big step, one to certainly skewer world opinion, not that it matters in the long run. Say what you will about Bush, and there's not much I care for about his record other than the economy and the war on terror, he had the guts to disregard "world opinion" and is willing to do what HE sees as right for America. IMO thats what a leader is supposed to do. I would feel this way regardless of the party of ANY president who acted in such a manner.

Any net positives? Only one I can see...graphic proof that there will be a BIG price to pay to you screw with us.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is that this is a classic case of asymmetric warfare (IMO). You have significant forces available for use - but where do you direct them? At a country? A people? An area?

Without precision attacks, you risk generating support for the group you are trying to destroy. Not attacking gives the impression you are powerless, and an opponent can achieve their objectives - both political and physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is that this is a classic case of asymmetric warfare (IMO). You have significant forces available for use - but where do you direct them? At a country? A people? An area?

Without precision attacks, you risk generating support for the group you are trying to destroy. Not attacking gives the impression you are powerless, and an opponent can achieve their objectives - both political and physical.

You are so correct, and thats the case that the US has been trying to make for some time.

As a military man Evan, how about you give us your views to the question I asked John Simkin?

You Evan Burton are now Bush and Blair and its 9/12. You have the luxury of hindsight.

What do YOU do as leaders of both the UK and the USA in the days, weeks and months after the 9/11 attacks?"

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Edited by David Richardson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.

But hey, whatever.

Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you John, exactly HOW did you decide that the "logic' of my question appears to be that Saddam was behind 9/11? There is NOTHING in my question that would lead a sane person to that conclusion. Was that a childish attempt on your part to tar me with that brush? Hint to John, next time LOAD THE BRUSH WITH TAR!

Look at the title of the thread. You brought up 9/11. What exactly is the link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you John, exactly HOW did you decide that the "logic' of my question appears to be that Saddam was behind 9/11? There is NOTHING in my question that would lead a sane person to that conclusion. Was that a childish attempt on your part to tar me with that brush? Hint to John, next time LOAD THE BRUSH WITH TAR!

Look at the title of the thread. You brought up 9/11. What exactly is the link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq?

Piss poor answer John. In this thread the it was YOU who first brought up 9/11. Do some "research"

Secondly the original question to you was asked first in the "Bush outlaws war protests thread" (actually it was asked TWICE as you failed to answer the first time). In that thread, in the post where I first asked the question, I answered your question on why we removed Saddam. I was very clear. I never suggested any link to the terror act on 9/11 and Saddam. Do some "research"

So what we have here is simply an example of your fingers getting caught in the cookie jar.

Wanna try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.

But hey, whatever.

Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.

"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?

I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.

Your leading with your chin...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"With the benefit of hindsight..."

A wonderful thing, but not a panacea for all ills.

Okay, my opinion, FWIW, based on what I would have done and my reactions to what was done:

First task, ensure no similar attacks can take place. Unpopular restrictions put in place - temporarily - but tough. Deal with unpopularity later.

Next, determine who carried out attacks (linked in some ways, of course, with first step). Examine evidence, re-evaluate intelligence. Start to determine the classic police profile - who / motive / means / opportunity.

There was intelligence that pointed towards OBL, but they were expecting some type of CBW attack in a single location.

The powers that be decided to use this opportunity to launch an offensive on Saddam. I don't disagree with this, per se. He was a festering sore which would had flared in the past and would have to be dealt with eventually - against the leader, not the people. The later conduct of the operation gave reason to question it. Unacceptable treatment of prisoners - when you take the high moral ground, you must continue to act in such a way as to justify that moral stance. Peoples actions are understandable - allowing them to happen, though, is not acceptable.

The rebuilding of Iraq has been badly handled. There should have been something more akin to the Marshall Plan than what is happening. Give the people what they need and want, and you eliminate a key recruiting point for insurgents. Strong indications of this early enough would have meant that the Iraqi people themselves would have controlled the security situation. My own opinion is that we have now passed beyond that point, and must accept either a total invasion (most likely politically unacceptable) or withdrawal and letting the country fall into civil war (undesirable but probably the better option).

Meantime, we have the original progenitors of 9/11 wandering about. After some years, penetration into the organisation could have been expected. This is where we move to an area which many people will not agree with me. I think this is where covert ops teams - PROPERLY controlled - would be very effective.

Let's face it - you don't have a target you can hit. No nation, no area, no obvious structure you can attack. This is where you have to have your most trusted and competent people locating the key players in the responsible terrorist organisation. Not RENDITION, where you snatch people - just observe. When you are satisfied that you have key people identified, take them out. In general this would be as quietly as possible - but in some cases you need to send a message that the organisation is a target. Fear is a tool, no matter how unpalatable that may seem.

Overall, I would be concentrating on covert ops rather than overt - unless there is a definite gain to be had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.

But hey, whatever.

Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.

"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?

I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.

Your leading with your chin...

Ah but thats a bit different don't you think David. The "enemy" was pretty easy to find and was well defined. Quite a bit different that the threat today. The question here is how do you respond to TODAYS threat. Lets see the mood of the general population of Sweden should a 9/11 happen to them. Until then the rest is just smoke....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.

But hey, whatever.

Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.

"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?

I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.

Your leading with your chin...

Ah but thats a bit different don't you think David. The "enemy" was pretty easy to find and was well defined. Quite a bit different that the threat today. The question here is how do you respond to TODAYS threat. Lets see the mood of the general population of Sweden should a 9/11 happen to them. Until then the rest is just smoke....

nah, this enemy wants it ALL yearning for the good ole day's (1400-1600's). No real plan but they're ballsey enough to go for the *brass-ring*. So for now they'll settle for terrorism under a cloak of spiritual warfare w/vestial virgins guiding the way. The minute they take territory (and they do want Europe) they're done.

I suspect Bin Laden (if alive) would like to change his offensive tactics. He knows what he's put at risk. Also, the American populace is beginning to understand the KORAN, and what it means: a political manifesto, perhaps?

No, the way to clean this Bin Laden (do you suspect he has an overlord, other than Allah of course?) mess up is, make Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, the *...stans* and Iraq, STATES (51 thru whatever)! We've invested enough in them, ALL of them -- Suspend our constitution, take'em over then nationlisze their assests. With the proceed's we could fund the United Nations, the World Bank and their band of merry thiefs, 100%! (that way cash flow won't stop, we can continue the ridiculous battle on drugs, and in the same sweep of the sword, bring gas prices at the pump back down to $0.25/gallon.....Only problem is, I can't find a NEO-CON to sell the plan to, they're gone, diminishing numbers since the ole Presidential aircraft carrier fly-in, 'Mission Accomplished' debacle....

Where's William Kristol when you need him? evidently nowhere.....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.

But hey, whatever.

Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.

"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?

I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.

Your leading with your chin...

Ah but thats a bit different don't you think David. The "enemy" was pretty easy to find and was well defined. Quite a bit different that the threat today. The question here is how do you respond to TODAYS threat. Lets see the mood of the general population of Sweden should a 9/11 happen to them. Until then the rest is just smoke....

nah, this enemy wants it ALL yearning for the good ole day's (1400-1600's). No real plan but they're ballsey enough to go for the *brass-ring*. So for now they'll settle for terrorism under a cloak of spiritual warfare w/vestial virgins guiding the way. The minute they take territory (and they do want Europe) they're done.

I suspect Bin Laden (if alive) would like to change his offensive tactics. He knows what he's put at risk. Also, the American populace is beginning to understand the KORAN, and what it means: a political manifesto, perhaps?

No, the way to clean this Bin Laden (do you suspect he has an overlord, other than Allah of course?) mess up is, make Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, the *...stans* and Iraq, STATES (51 thru whatever)! We've invested enough in them, ALL of them -- Suspend our constitution, take'em over then nationlisze their assests. With the proceed's we could fund the United Nations, the World Bank and their band of merry thiefs, 100%! (that way cash flow won't stop, we can continue the ridiculous battle on drugs, and in the same sweep of the sword, bring gas prices at the pump back down to $0.25/gallon.....Only problem is, I can't find a NEO-CON to sell the plan to, they're gone, diminishing numbers since the ole Presidential aircraft carrier fly-in, 'Mission Accomplished' debacle....

Where's William Kristol when you need him? evidently nowhere.....

Just curious David, where does the satire begin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (at least tactical) victory Bush and Blair gave bin Laden was in making a reasoned response from Muslim nations impossible. Individual Muslims around the world surely are sickened by the confrontational climate that now exists, but they aren't the people bin Laden was aiming at. Bin Laden was aiming firstly at Muslim nations (like his own, Saudi Arabia) to make sure that the cost of alliance with the US was too high for them to bear, and secondly at potential Muslim activists, to give them reasons for doing things like driving Jeeps full of inflammables into airports in the UK.

Bush and Blair have made sure that no-one's going to be on the side they're supporting (which leaves only passivity or bin Laden's team). There used to be a third way, secular Arab nationalism, which bin Laden's crew hated worse than they hated the West, but Bush saw to it that that option was more or less eradicated.

As we know now, Bush and his team had decided to target Saddam Hussein a long time before 9/11, which is why it didn't really matter that al-Qaeda and Hussein were sworn enemies - 9/11 was just a welcome pretext for something they were going to do anyway. Let's imagine that Bush's team hadn't had that prior agenda. Bin Laden would have attacked anyway, since the World Trade Center had been a target of choice for nearly a decade. The US government, however, needn't have launched two wars, both of which it's currently losing. As subsequent investigations have shown, there was plenty that was wrong with US law enforcement in the run-up to 9/11 that needed putting right (and still hasn't been). Most of the necessary measures are procedural and boring … but effective, rather than 'tough' and sexy, but rather ineffective.

Look at the strategic picture from bin Laden's side: the main US strength is in conventional weapons, so he has to turn that into a weakness. The way you do that is by getting the US to actually commit its forces, so that they can be tied down somewhere by asymmetrical forces (like the Taleban in Afghanistan and the various militias and resistance forces in Iraq). Bin Laden was also helped by the fact that asymmetrical warfare was also Hussein's resistance strategy (ever wonder why the tyrant distributed weapons by the thousand to his population in the weeks before the US invasion?). Asymmetrical warfare had never died down in Afghanistan, so it didn't need to be revived. Bin Laden had few strengths … but what he had was the force of an idea, an idea which Bush managed to strengthen beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.

Way to go, Bushie! But it was an astute piece of reasoning from bin Laden's side. He was, in my opinion, well aware of the delusional nature of many Americans (nuke Makkah!) and the lack of even the basic knowledge of what they were getting themselves into. One of the first Arab proverbs I came across goes like this: "me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world". People who feel this way aren't likely to be impressed by a bit of the kind of military grandstanding the Bushies do (like invading Iraq!) - in fact, they're likely to welcome it, since it puts a bit of backbone into their own side.

Yea right David...I wonder WHY it is that Ayman al-Zawahiri is begging Islam to stay in the fight? Bin Laden won? Not even close. It's not American's that are 'deluded' David it appears to be you and the rest of the left.

But hey, whatever.

Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11.

"Come talk to us after you feel the heat of a 9/11"?

I think thats a foolish remark, considering WW1 & 2 (Hitler, Stalin, etal.) ETO. Comprising of what, an estimated 75 million lost, countless cities destroyed, thousands upon thousands of American lives lost in those conflicts.... When it comes to geographical and lives lost, how does that compare with the World Trade Center and 3,000 (est.) dead. No, I think Europeans understand 'heat'.

Your leading with your chin...

Ah but thats a bit different don't you think David. The "enemy" was pretty easy to find and was well defined. Quite a bit different that the threat today. The question here is how do you respond to TODAYS threat. Lets see the mood of the general population of Sweden should a 9/11 happen to them. Until then the rest is just smoke....

nah, this enemy wants it ALL yearning for the good ole day's (1400-1600's). No real plan but they're ballsey enough to go for the *brass-ring*. So for now they'll settle for terrorism under a cloak of spiritual warfare w/vestial virgins guiding the way. The minute they take territory (and they do want Europe) they're done.

I suspect Bin Laden (if alive) would like to change his offensive tactics. He knows what he's put at risk. Also, the American populace is beginning to understand the KORAN, and what it means: a political manifesto, perhaps?

No, the way to clean this Bin Laden (do you suspect he has an overlord, other than Allah of course?) mess up is, make Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, the *...stans* and Iraq, STATES (51 thru whatever)! We've invested enough in them, ALL of them -- Suspend our constitution, take'em over then nationlisze their assests. With the proceed's we could fund the United Nations, the World Bank and their band of merry thiefs, 100%! (that way cash flow won't stop, we can continue the ridiculous battle on drugs, and in the same sweep of the sword, bring gas prices at the pump back down to $0.25/gallon.....Only problem is, I can't find a NEO-CON to sell the plan to, they're gone, diminishing numbers since the ole Presidential aircraft carrier fly-in, 'Mission Accomplished' debacle....

Where's William Kristol when you need him? evidently nowhere.....

Just curious David, where does the satire begin?

"No, the way to clean this Bin Laden...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...