Reply With Quote
Let me guess.....nuke em!
is serious. The U.S. and all western allies in Iraq need to take off the gloves and kick a little ass. when you're fighting terrorists, brute and incredible force is necessary.
Let me guess.....nuke em!
Let me guess.....nuke em!
Better them than us.
Just admit you are a card carrying member of AQ and move on, Dan.
The Guns Of August
By Richard Holbrooke
Thursday, August 10, 2006; A23
Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay. Turkey is talking openly of invading northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists based there. Syria could easily get pulled into the war in southern Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from jihadists to support Hezbollah, even though the governments in Cairo and Riyadh hate that organization. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of giving shelter to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; there is constant fighting on both sides of that border. NATO's own war in Afghanistan is not going well. India talks of taking punitive action against Pakistan for allegedly being behind the Bombay bombings. Uzbekistan is a repressive dictatorship with a growing Islamic resistance.
The only beneficiaries of this chaos are Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week held the largest anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration in the world in the very heart of Baghdad, even as 6,000 additional U.S. troops were rushing into the city to "prevent" a civil war that has already begun.
This combination of combustible elements poses the greatest threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, history's only nuclear superpower confrontation. The Cuba crisis, although immensely dangerous, was comparatively simple: It came down to two leaders and no war. In 13 days of brilliant diplomacy, John F. Kennedy induced Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba.
Kennedy was deeply influenced by Barbara Tuchman's classic, "The Guns of August," which recounted how a seemingly isolated event 92 summers ago -- an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb terrorist -- set off a chain reaction that led in just a few weeks to World War I. There are vast differences between that August and this one. But Tuchman ended her book with a sentence that resonates in this summer of crisis: "The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit."
Preventing just such a trap must be the highest priority of American policy. Unfortunately, there is little public sign that the president and his top advisers recognize how close we are to a chain reaction, or that they have any larger strategy beyond tactical actions.
Under the universally accepted doctrine of self-defense, which is embodied in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, there is no question that Israel has a legitimate right to take action against a group that has sworn to destroy it and had hidden some 13,000 missiles in southern Lebanon. In these cir stances, American support for Israel is essential, as it has been since the time of Truman; if Washington abandoned Jerusalem, the very existence of the Jewish state could be jeopardized, and the world crisis whose early phase we are now in would quickly get far worse. The United States must continue to make clear that it is ready to come to Israel's defense, both with American diplomacy and, as necessary, with military equipment.
But the United States must also understand, and deal with, the wider consequences of its own actions and public statements, which have caused an unprecedented decline in America's position in much of the world and are provoking dangerous new anti-American coalitions and encouraging a new generation of terrorists.
American disengagement from active Middle East diplomacy since 2001 has led to greater violence and a decline in U.S. influence. Others have been eager to fill the vacuum. (Note the sudden emergence of France as a key player in the current burst of diplomacy.)
American policy has had the unintended, but entirely predictable, effect of pushing our enemies closer together. Throughout the region, Sunnis and Shiites have put aside their hatred of each other just long enough to join in shaking their fists -- or doing worse -- at the United States and Israel. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, our troops are coming under attack by both sides -- Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. If this continues, the U.S. presence in Baghdad has no future.
President Bush owes it to the nation, and especially the troops who risk their lives every day, to reexamine his policies. For starters, he should redeploy some U.S. troops into the safer northern areas of Iraq to serve as a buffer between the increasingly agitated Turks and the restive, independence-minded Kurds. Given the new situation, such a redeployment to Kurdish areas and a phased drawdown elsewhere -- with no final decision yet as to a full withdrawal from Iraq -- is fully justified. At the same time, we should send more troops to Afghanistan, where the situation has deteriorated even as the Pentagon is reducing U.S. troop levels -- which is read in the region as a sign of declining U.S. interest in Afghanistan.
On the diplomatic front, the United States cannot abandon the field to other nations (not even France!) or the United Nations. Every secretary of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright negotiated with Syria, including those Republican icons George Shultz and James Baker. Why won't this administration follow suit, in full consultation with Israel at every step? This would clearly be in Israel's interest. Instead, administration officials refuse direct talks and say publicly, "Syria knows what it must do" -- a statement that denies the very point of diplomacy.
The same is true of talks with Iran, although these would be more difficult. Why has the world's leading nation stood aside for over five years and allowed the international dialogue with Tehran to be conducted by Europeans, the Chinese and the United Nations? And why has that dialogue been restricted to the nuclear issue -- vitally important, to be sure, but not as urgent at this moment as Iran's sponsorship and arming of Hezbollah and its support of actions against U.S. forces in Iraq?
Containing the violence must be Washington's first priority. Finding a stable and secure solution that protects Israel must follow. Then must come the unwinding of America's disastrous entanglement in Iraq in a manner that is not a complete humiliation and does not lead to even greater turmoil. All of this will take sustained high-level diplomacy -- precisely what the American administration has avoided in the Middle East. Washington has, or at least used to have, leverage over the more moderate Arab states; it should use it again, in the closest consultation with and on behalf of Israel.
And we must be ready for unexpected problems that will test us; they could come in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Jordan or even Somalia -- but one thing seems sure: They will come. Without a new, comprehensive strategy based on our most urgent national security needs -- as opposed to a muddled version of Wilsonianism -- this crisis is almost certain to worsen and spread.
Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for The Post.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
===================
Looking at the Repug administration, dubya/ head/rummy/powell/rice/wolfowitz, whose "vision" for the ME was to start a phony war to scare the out of everybody in the ME and allow democracy to bloom spontaneously in Muslim countries, I absolutely no faith in the Repugs to find their way of their mess in their broken Iraq, to say nothing of
dubya's Lebanon strategy to Blair:
"We need to get Hesbollah to stop doing that ".
Yeah, right, you ignorant, murderous simpleton.
I grew up during the height of the cold war. Probably had a nuclear weapon pointed to within 15 minutes from anywhere I've been here on earth since I've been alive by people who were once rumored to hate us for our 'freedoms', until recently. I am not threatened by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear power.
Now I'm going to state some things right off the bat -
I am Australian;
I don't believe Australia has any place in the war (although we have 1000 troops in it);
I don't believe the war has or ever had any legitimacy;
It is quite clear the war is a simple pirate raid, securing the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world as we reach peakoil.
I do not want to get into a debate about the rights or wrongs of the war because nothing will change my mind.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS: what is the extent of grass roots support for the war?
Do most people actually believe that "bringing democracy to Iraq" is worth 2591 dead Americans (not to mention the wounded, Iraqi deaths, $300+ billion dollars that could have been used for poor/sick/disadvanted Americans, etc)?
That's a good point.
You gotta love the government though, it's much more important to make gay marriage illegal.
Let me guess.....nuke em!
yea. Tactically. Tehran, Damascus, etc. they don't understand "talk and Diplomacy" They understand blow ur ing head off. They don't want peace; they want you and me and everyone else not an extremist on this contenant DEAD. There is no reason for us to go there just for oil. Oil prices are higher than they were before we went in there. If we went in for oil, why hasn't the price of Oil gone down??? you would think it would have!!!
let me guess...let them set off bombs all over our country, then politely ask for peace?
No, just wait for them to set off 1 little puny bomb, and use that as an excuse to drop the nukes.let me guess...let them set off bombs all over our country, then politely ask for peace?
Right, all the terrorists that conspired on everything from the Lebanon Barracks to the USS Cole just knew what Bush was going to do with the Middle East and got ambitious.But the United States must also understand, and deal with, the wider consequences of its own actions and public statements, which have caused an unprecedented decline in America's position in much of the world and are provoking dangerous new anti-American coalitions and encouraging a new generation of terrorists.
I can't put much stock in an article that praises Madeline Albright. About all she was good for during her work as an administration official was tossing Clinton's salad.
Hezbollah started that BS. What did Israel do to provoke it? nothing.
And which Democrat here has enough of a brain to come up with a plan that will work considering the murderous and relatively crazy and evil mentality? AND these guys aren't daisy picking treehuggers like we'd like to think.
My cousin was in Iraq, and they killed a 13 year old trying to bury a roadside bomb for an islamic Insurgent. These are not peaceful people.
1. So all Muslims are extremists? They all want us dead, not to live in peace and happiness like you and I do? BULLSHIIIT. The vast majority of people of all creeds, colours and religions just want to live a peaceful life with their loved ones.yea. Tactically. Tehran, Damascus, etc. they don't understand "talk and Diplomacy" They understand blow ur ing head off. They don't want peace; they want you and me and everyone else not an extremist on this contenant DEAD. There is no reason for us to go there just for oil. Oil prices are higher than they were before we went in there. If we went in for oil, why hasn't the price of Oil gone down??? you would think it would have!!!
let me guess...let them set off bombs all over our country, then politely ask for peace?
2. Oil prices are rising because world supply is 81bil barrels a day, and world demand is closer to 90bil barrels a day and rising, mainly due to economic growth in China and India on top of existing OECD demand, nearly 30% of which is US even though the US has only 4% of the world's population. The oil price is also influenced by political instability in the Middle East, which has been intensified by the war in Iraq. Spouting sheit about things you don't understand makes you look like an idiot.
3. How about the world agreeing not to rape and pillage each other, trading on fair terms (neither of these things a US strong point!), using money currently going to war as investment to raise the living standards of the poor to a point where blowing things up is the last thought in their minds?
The simplicity and naivety of your "arguments" is astounding. Try watching something other than Fox.
Israel did nothing? Hahahahahahahaha. Nice blinkers you've got there. Both sides are culpable.
So, I'm Aqbal and 10 of my family members were just killed by the war. I now have no family and no reason to live... what should I do? Hmmm, think I'll join the insurgency, got nothing else to lose.
YOU DO IT TO YOURSELF
YOU DO
YOU DO IT TO YOURSELF
JUST YOU AND NO-ONE ELSE
YOU DO IT TO YOURSELF
I just wish my country wasn't involved.
If a majority of Americans think like this moron, my question is answered.
[QUOTE=RuffnReadyOzStyle]
3. How about the world agreeing not to rape and pillage each other, trading on fair terms (neither of these things a US strong point!), using money currently going to war as investment to raise the living standards of the poor to a point where blowing things up is the last thought in their minds?
[QUOTE]
Sorry dude, it does not work that way. Living conditions do not have much to do with this. This is about extremist belief and religion. The few of Muslims that are extremists, including the President of IRAN, want you and me and everyone else that is not an extremist dead. and nowhere did I say that ALL muslims are bad. there are many good ones. This will soon be WWIII. I said it. In two years, look me in the eye and tell me it is not.
Ofcourse,
You're aqbal and you beleive in this mystical beleif that there was a singularity of culture known as Palestinians, and you're family is complicit and working for the destruction of innocent civilians whose grandparents fought for their land and bought. But because you're the bas seed of every country in the middle east, and you're being spun like a fan, you want to believe that israel is evil and kills christian babys while using their blood to make matzah bread.
You can't stand that the fact that israel really doesn't live up to it's zionist image by conquering all arabs and coming out in broad daylight and admitting they drink arab virgin teenage blood, and by the same token you tell peace coalitions who support rights you abhor like gay marriage, and feminism, that you are on their side and are very peaceful. When the essence of your character is to have false pretenses, and you're forced to lie, and you spin your struggle as being that of the halves and halve nots when it's convenient, and that of racial matters, but it's all really about your hard on for allah and the fact that you envy any people who are advanced and don't beat their wives and pray to allah.
Yeah,
Let's give people like you an open forum for reasonable discussion.
run-on sentences < Radiohead lyrics
Democratic Response:
Can we blame this on the evil right-wing Christian zealots?
Because I just p***ed in my pants at the thought of even more hostilities in the world.
Is there any way we can form up around the campfire and just work this out over smores so that peace reigns on earth
(but not like Jesus said.....like Michael Moore said!)?
Maybe we could get Jimmy Carter's advice!
Solves nothing. You will never kill them all. The US is still in danger from being hit from terroists and we have been in Iraq for years now.
That would be really lovely if everybody could agree to that; however, a lot of people in the world, either that lead nations or are striving to do so, have other priorities, such as power, personal enrichment, conquest, or religious zeal. (Believe it or not, there are people with corrupt motives other than in the United States and Israel!)
Assuming that your proposal were in fact the goal of Western nations, the existing corrupt and/or illicitly ambitious leadership of several nations would serve as a barrier between the poor and these noble goals. In cases where the governments are not corrupt, but are not very strong, insurgent groups, militias, and such, wreak mayhem preventing the establishment or order necessary to germinate any kind of economic prosperity.
In some cases, in pursuit of the goals you mention, certain actors become so deleterious that they must be neutralized by force. Unfortunately, they are highly unlikely to be persuaded to change their actions by arguments like yours, inasmuch as they do not care.
I do not mean to defend the U.S. campaign in Iraq, which looks every day more and more like a serious tactical blunder. However, I often have encountered sentiments similar to your own that if only we would embrace peace, everybody else would too. History is littered with peaceful nations that were conquered and subjugated by less advanced, but more aggressive ones.
I grew up during the height of the cold war. Probably had a nuclear weapon pointed to within 15 minutes from anywhere I've been here on earth since I've been alive by people who were once rumored to hate us for our 'freedoms', until recently. Currently, I am not threatened by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear power.
I fixed it for you.
Iran does not want to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States. They never have claimed they want to attack the United States. Sure, they would enjoy nuclear deterrence against us, but I even doubt they would wanto to hand off nuclear technology to terror groups to go blow up a suitcase bomb in New York, since we would retaliate as if it were an ICBM fired from Isfahan anyway.
I grew up during the height of the cold war. Probably had a nuclear weapon pointed to within 15 minutes from anywhere I've been here on earth since I've been alive by people who were once rumored to hate us for our 'freedoms', until recently. I am not threatened by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear power.
But they have made it clear for several years that they want a first strike against Israel. Dismiss it saber-rattling if you will, but their actions over a long period of time reflect exactly what Rafsanjani said they would do. Of course they tell us they just want "nuclear power" in English. They tell their own people in Farsi that they are going to annihilate the Zionist en y, and that they should be prepared for martyrdom on a massive scale when Israel retaliates.
So even if you say "Eh, it's just the Jews, who needs 'em," know that a nuclear war in the Middle East means chaos for the world. We cannot bury our heads in the sand.
Grammar Nazi < Lame Power trippin' Moderator
EXCELLENT Post. I think that there is the remote likelyhood that Iran will launch a nuclear warhead on ISRAEL on Aug.22. That is when the U.S. steps in and says NO. Why else do you think that Iran wants to wait till then? There's a guy, I can't remember his name at the current moment, but he has written articles about what he thinks will happen, and so far each and every one of them has come true. He recently wrote an article about how Iran will maybe drop a nuclear warhead on Israel on Aug.22. Skeptical, yet, I am, but I think it may be relatively valid.
If that does indeed happen, I think the U.S. needs to just go turn Tehran into a sea of glass. And if Not Tehran, then Isfahan or somewhere.
Israel will beat us to that. They have 100-200 nuclear warheads, and the range to reach Tehran.
ANZUS:
Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty
Origin:
The treaty came about following the close cooperation of the United States, Australia and New Zealand during World War II, during which time Australia had come perilously close to invasion by Japan. Following the end of World War II, the United States was eager to normalize relations with Japan, particularly as the Korean War was still raging a short distance from Japan. With the involvement of China and possibly the Soviet Union in Korea, the Cold War was threatening to become a full-scale war. However, Australia and New Zealand in particular were extremely reluctant to finalize a peace treaty with Japan which would allow for Japanese rearmament. Both countries relented only when an Australian and New Zealand proposal for a three-way security treaty was accepted by the United States.
The resulting treaty was concluded at San Francisco on 1 September 1951, and entered into force on 29 April 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective cons utional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and
develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.[/quote]
Who does that benefit? Who wanted that arrangement?
As long as your ass is saved right?
Go yourself...
Oh ande moron...go look at what OPEC is...how it's Oil is traded, and what it's members are....hten go see the only time it was giving discounts and who the major benficiaries were....Hint...think sanctions that starved millions of Iraqis.
Then you can go an talk about Israel...about how America supports dictators throughout the mideast...
Never realizing it was the ing Queen that created that situation.
So Mr. Commonwealth...
I suggest you crack a book, and realize that Brits and French should be taking a bullet before any American does in this...
It's your commonwealth ass created mess...not ours.
Read learn...
Then focus on genocide...it's what the Queen does best.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
