quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

We could all be as one, if the policies made any damned sense. I dont think many dissented from the Afghanistan invasion - thats where AQ were, so there we went. All the problems and disunity only started with the invasion of Iraq, which regardless of the dodgy intelligence dossiers flying about to justify it, we all knew was not where the AQ threat was - although regrettably and all too predictably, thats where it is now.
E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

We could all be as one, if the policies made any damned sense. I dont think many dissented from the Afghanistan invasion - thats where AQ were, so there we went. All the problems and disunity only started with the invasion of Iraq, which regardless of the dodgy intelligence dossiers flying about to justify it, we all knew was not where the AQ threat was - although regrettably and all too predictably, thats where it is now.
E

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation.

I believe that there are two basic types of war.   Religious (which I believe the "war on terror" is) and Economic (which is also an element of the war on terror).

I belive it is religious that has it roots back into the 1930s (long before American Imperialism) Egypt and some islamic fundamentalists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Rule said about G Bush
 
He has no conscience. He does not give a fuck. He sat in that school on 9/11 with a brick stone face, but behind the stones was the anticipation. Would his minions do as he had commanded? Would his plans be executed without a hitch? He was in that school to provide himself with an alibi.
 
Let yourself down there RULE. An unworthy post. No supporter of G Bush me.
 
With regard to the US division over Viet Nam. That only came about when things went wrong. What a surprise. I remember the Gulf Of Tonkin incident when US fighter jets sank some wooden ships. Treated like heroes the pilots were AND the treatment handed out to Sen W Morse who opposed the war from the start.
 
Free expression of political division is healthy !

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation.

I believe that there are two basic types of war.   Religious (which I believe the "war on terror" is) and Economic (which is also an element of the war on terror).

I belive it is religious that has it roots back into the 1930s (long before American Imperialism) Egypt and some islamic fundamentalists.

American Imperialism is an extension of British Imperialism... and isn't it funny we had to bribe our "coalition' with promises of oil and contracting deals when we went into Iraq? Neo-Colonialism is about corporate interests, because if it was not about that we would not be there. We would not give a rat's ass about the region if it were not about the republican G.O.D. (Guns. oil, and drugs... where you find oil and drugs you will find American guns)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

It's not that other factors aren't worth considering. They have value and can have a huge impact, when applied on top of military strength.
 
Looking at Poland in 1939, they certainly had everything they needed to resist the Germans, other than a modern army. History gives many examples of similar scenarios.
 
A little closer to home, we can examine Vietnam. Certainly there was massive discontent in America, which had a huge impact of the policies of the United States. All that was built on top of heavy casualties suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. It serves as an excellent example of a powerful intangible that came in to play, because of military might. America could win each individual battle, but lost so many men doing it, so as to make the entire affair seem Pyrric.
 
Does anyone honestly believe that protests at home would have had as strong an impact, if casualties had been very low?
 
Which takes us to Iraq/Iran, and what has been "won" by the terrorists (we need a new term, as in truth, the west may be the terrorists in some minds). Any death is tragic, obviously, but the stark truth is that the casualty count isn't high enough for that intangible to have any meaning to a wide number of people. This may sound bad (bet I get flamed for this), but more Americans die on the highways in Houston every month, than die in Iraq. Again, that isn't meant to justify any death ... it only illustrates that the "terrorists" do not have sufficient military might to add meaning to their intangibles. If Iran (for example) pushed the issue tomorrow, the United States military would simply move in and crush them. Again, not to justify it ... only to explain it for what it is.
 
So, no, I don't see these terror groups and winning anything, They haven't won and will not win. They are left with few options. The greatest card they have is to disrupt the oil supply to the west. This action would very much piss off all the fellow Muslim states that are making a fortune off oil.
 
I don't like what the west is doing in the Middle East, but can't be objective and say that I see a "winning strategy" in anything done by the other side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Take out a world map and look at it. Consider the placement of troops, do you see a pattern emerge? Where there are oil and drugs we usually have troops near by, or we vocally want to do away with governments that do not want to play ball with corporate interests.

It perhaps is a bit unfair to name it the republican God, because democrats are complicit also, but republicans talk about "God" so much it just makes it a little more entertaining to say it that way....

Yes, we took over for colonial governments in several regions after WWII, most notably for the French after they left Vietnam. Now you may not agree with my analysis of this, but there it is... and as far as bribes, um, what would you call it, splitting the spoils of war? Either way it doesn't sound very nice or altruistic to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
General point.

Before we go any further can I just state, as far as I am aware, Islamic terrorist aren't about the destruction of the west, that is something Bush has decided they are after. The terrorists want the US and its allies out of the middle east and Islamic territories.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
General point.

Before we go any further can I just state, as far as I am aware, Islamic terrorist aren't about the destruction of the west, that is something Bush has decided they are after. The terrorists want the US and its allies out of the middle east and Islamic territories.

And you know this how? Please offer us a list of terrorists that you know well.
 
Some of the leaders of these groups have said point blank that they are out for the destruction of the west. Without any real evidence to the contrary, past what someone "thinks" ... I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt and take them at their word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Take out a world map and look at it. Consider the placement of troops, do you see a pattern emerge? Where there are oil and drugs we usually have troops near by, or we vocally want to do away with governments that do not want to play ball with corporate interests.

It perhaps is a bit unfair to name it the republican God, because democrats are complicit also, but republicans talk about "God" so much it just makes it a little more entertaining to say it that way....

Yes, we took over for colonial governments in several regions after WWII, most notably for the French after they left Vietnam. Now you may not agree with my analysis of this, but there it is... and as far as bribes, um, what would you call it, splitting the spoils of war? Either way it doesn't sound very nice or altruistic to me.

ok  now you got it back to opinion and not a statement of fact    Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
There is no doubt the US could win any standing army or should be able to with their military technology but to crush Iran and any other state will only leave a failed state which will create a different threat all together. Where do drugs come from? On the whole, failed states. Where is terrorism created? Failed states. A British general said on TV the other day, the west is fighting today's wars with yesterday's tactics and just displacing problems.