We should go to war and get 1 out of 2 on weapons finds. After that, we can play for 2 out of 3.



Last edited by Colin at Jun 11 2003, 08:44 AM

Might as well make that 2 out of 4....

Might as well make that 2 out of 4....[/b][/quote]
Now you just went and pissed off a lot of Columbians saying something like that.

"The State Department spent all their time trying to figure out how to live with Communism, Reagan spent all his time figuring out how to defeat Communism"
Newt Gingrich - on Reagan

Newt was kind of fat - don't you think that got heavy on Reagan after a while. Or maybe Ronnie was a bottom, he never struck me as one but you never know


p.s. JR - how do you get your hair to stand up like that in that picture, I love it and want to do it with mine
I won't have to use animal excrement will I :D

JR ... fix your bot. Normally you are much more on point than this.

JR ... fix your bot. Normally you are much more on point than this.[/b][/quote]
i was suggesting that the goal of Bush is to defeat terrorism and support of terrorism in that region - rather than waiting, negotiating, talking and "improving ties" with those countries.

many people believe that there is terrorism because people are provoked or put in that situation.... and we should all just find ways "to get along with each other"

part of that strategy was to take advantage of the brief window of opportunity to attack iraq and install a new government in the center of that region. probably one that will yield better long term results than "giving peace a chance" with Saddam Hussein.

i believe there is terrorism because it is tolerated and allowed to exist.

i also believe that terrorism can be defeated. not today. I dont support Isreal or Palestinians and i dont particularly care who is right or wrong... but its an interesting test case to see what happens when you respond with two times more force to each attack. Hamas will run out of leaders before Islreal will run out of rockets.

I believe that its logical that removing incitement and leadership will yield measurable results. Not today... but in terms of causing people who support militant groups to stop and ask themselves "is this worth it" - "are we gaining ground, or losing ground" - "is this improving or worsening our lives" and most importantly "is this working".

JR ... fix your bot. Normally you are much more on point than this.[/b][/quote]
more to the point, i would say there is two basic strategies in the world regarding the middle east, fundamentalism and terrorism.

some countries are focused on "how do we modify their behavior"
some are focused on "how do we defeat this behavior"

"Rumsfeld: Iran may have nukes soon " - Translation "We have Iraqs oil we now need Irans and a route for an oil pipe"

and this would be because we can successfully argue that Iran is a normal, stable country with a stable government that should have nuclear weapons?

:zzz:

and this would be because we can successfully argue that Iran is a normal, stable country with a stable government that should have nuclear weapons?

:zzz:[/b][/quote]
What right does America have to go and invade other countries solely on the belief that they may have WMD?

It would be alot easy to argue that George Bush is the worlds most dangerous individual and that while he is in power America should not have the right to have nuclear.

i did not say they had any "right" to do it.

why is the IAEA, Russia, EU and UN pushing Iran to come clean and they are refusing?

is a nuclear Iran a safe thing for anyone?
is it a reversable thing?

are you saying "i dont like Bush, so Iran should have nuclear weapons"?

I am not sayig that because I think Bush is a maniac that illegally put himself in power that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Personally I think no-one should have nuclear weapons.

I am not sayig that because I think Bush is a maniac that illegally put himself in power that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Personally I think no-one should have nuclear weapons.[/b][/quote]
so... what is the solution if you think no one should have nuclear weapons?

seems like the US is usually the one making the biggest issue out of it and its the rest of the world saying "hey guys, dont be a bunch of assholes... leave them alone".

its understandable... but what is being done about it? who will stop it? the ones who will be most pressured to stop it are the ones who most feel the pressure. Isreal - which will most likely become nuclear glass art. and then the US who is in Irans eyes "the Great Satan".

there is a reason Finland does not care about it. there is a reason The US does. there is a reason that one country feels more strongly about it that others.

i would feel much better if Clinton would have bombed North Koreas reactor when they were contemplating it.

i think the whole world agrees that bombing Iraqs reactor when they were building it was a good thing.

i think the whole world would Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

the question is... what do we do about it?
wait because you dont like Bush?
complain about Bush?
hate Bush?

or.... think about solutions to the problem and that is Iran not cooperating with the INternational community in their nuclear program while also being one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world?

"i hate Bush" does not fix the problem.

Might is right.

"why is the IAEA, Russia, EU and UN pushing Iran to come clean and they are refusing?"

More to the point, why the hell is the IAEA in my referrer stats every day?

Torone, are you hiding nuclear weapons?
:blink:

Torone, are you hiding nuclear weapons?
:blink:[/b][/quote]
No, although I do know how to build them...

Man you might want to read some books about the middle east and learn a little bit more about Irans' policies before you post about this subject again.

Speaking of books, I just finished reading The Hunt for Bin Laden by Robin Moore. It follows the Green Berets on the ground in Afghanistan on their missions against the Taliban and Al-Qaida. It gives a very good insight into modern day special forces warfare. A very impressive book indeed.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

I highly recommend it to people who want to learn more on the war on terrorism than is seen on the news. MikeAI you'd like it I'm sure.



Last edited by Timon at Jun 12 2003, 10:01 AM

Timon,

How does it end?

It ends when Task Force Dagger pulls out of Afghanistan shortly after the AQ standoff in Tora Bora.

The title is actually misleading, the book is more about the war against the Taliban than the search for Bin Laden.

Task Force Dagger being the initial Green Beret task force inserted into Afghanistan right after 9/11 to link up with Northern Alliance generals and call in airstrikes etc.

I think because the story still lacks a good ending. Hopefully someday there will be a new edition with an addendum.

Yeah it's hard to come up with a good ending to a non-fiction book called "The Hunt For Bin Laden".

But I too hope to one day read the last "all is well that ends well" chapter ;-)

Kind of an overly simplistic summary, don't you think?

I think that the approach which is limited to modifying their behavior has failed completely.

I think that there is plenty of historical precedent to indicate that a military approach to defeating their behavior will fail - Israel wouldn't exist, Vietnam would either be still two nations or non-Communist, and Afghanistan might still be Communist, come to mind immediately.