Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

The United States government intends to implement a plan to strengthen the use of the military to combat global terrorism, according to The Washington Post.

As part of this new approach, the military would no longer await the approval of a local ambassador before taking action against terrorist elements, the report says.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060423...u=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Edited 2006-04-23 18:13:39]

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

It doesnt say anything about gaining the permission of the country of residence, so would this mean the US will conduct military action within a country without such permission? Wouldnt that be rather dangerous?

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
It doesnt say anything about gaining the permission of the country of residence, so would this mean the US will conduct military action within a country without such permission? Wouldnt that be rather dangerous?

While the local U.S. ambassador will be merely informed, rather than given a veto, over such action, it remains possible that local governments (with the possible of those that are complicit) will be required to grant permission before military action is taken. However, the issue is not clear.

The use of a Predator drone in countries such as the Sudan, for example, might not require the prior approval of local governments, which in any event may be lacking.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Without approval of the host country this could spell disaster for the United States.

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3):
Without approval of the host country this could spell disaster for the United States.

It could, yes. Which means that we'd better not take out terrorists in major countries without securing prior permission, or else risk the consequences to our international reputation -- or more.

Imagine taking out a camp in isolated areas of the Russian frontier, for example, without getting Putin's blessing in advance. That would be, to say the least, rather dangerous.

[Edited 2006-04-23 18:20:53]

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

So now, vice versa, the American government allows e.g. the British government to send a section of the SAS to Boston to take out IRA supporters?

Or the German government could send over the GSG9 to eliminate the leader of the neo-Nazi NSDAP-AO Gary Lauch, who repetively tried to organise "Werewolve" terrorist groups in Germany?

Jan

[Edited 2006-04-23 20:39:04]

User currently onlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):

It could, yes. Which means that we'd better not take out terrorists in major countries without securing prior permission, or else risk the consequences to our international reputation -- or more.

Well, it would be [correctly] interpreted by many nations, and any lawyer specializing in international law for that matter, as an act of war.

Give us a call first, please.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineTomTurner From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 247 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
Imagine taking out a camp in isolated areas of the Russian frontier, for example, without getting Putin's blessing in advance. That would be, to say the least, rather dangerous.

Which is why that will never happen. Elsewhere, however, it might.

Tom


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Military against terrorism is about as splendid an idea as hand grenades against disease-ridden mosquitoes.

You may get a few of them, but you won't solve the problem and the collateral damage will be massive.

But I guess learning from made mistakes is not on the agenda today...!  Yeah sure


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Klaus, I would like to know what your response would be to the policies of a country -- let's say its name begins with the letters, "I", "R", and "A", but does not end with "Q" -- that seeks nuclear technology, but whose leadership repudiates legal sanctions by the United Nations?

Who should exercise any ultimate option, if any?

[Edited 2006-04-28 18:59:15]

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Iraq was successfully contained before the invasion. No threat there. The embargo and the inspection process were successful in that regard.

As the state department has just now admitted, Iraq has now become a safe haven for terrorists.

The invasion was a complete and expensive failure regarding those nonexistent threats.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1772 times:

Thanks for your answer, Klaus. But I don't think I was clear enough; I meant to ask you what you would do about Iran.  Smile

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

Oops - my auto debunk mode has apparently kicked in before I recognized that this time it wasn't the usual justification of the Iraq invasion for a change...!  mischievous 

Sorry, I'm a bit too busy to be thorough these days.

Iran has become rather difficult - after the Iraq invasion has managed to convince the iranian population that only actually having nuclear weapons could be a viable deterrent, Ahmadinejad has it much easier getting domestic support for his confrontation course.

A military invasion is neither justified nor would it have any conceivable chance of success. The worst consequence of the Bush administration is that they have indeed convinced many among their supporters that military force was the only viable option in any conflict, instead of a last resort.

After the damage has been done already, I don't really see a nice and easy way out of it. Nuclear proliferation must be contained as strictly as possible - and that includes a worldwide termination of fission-based power generation as well to cut off the stream of resources that can - and already has been - diverted to weapon programs. Proliferation of civilian nuclear technology always implies proliferation of nuclear weaponry sooner or later.

More directly, Ahmadinejad needs to be countered firmly and his propaganda-based power needs to be undermined. It will take a combination of offering new options for cooperation - primarily politically and economically - with the threat of serious disadvantages on both levels.

Ahmadinejad had been elected mostly to counter corruption and economic problems as far as I know; His posturing is not least connected to his failure to deliver on those promises. The worst that could be done to him would be taking the "fun" out of his provocations. The last thing he wants is people remembering his promises before the election.

Reacting calm but determined to his frothing-at-the-mouth ramblings is a much better counter-tactic than stepping up the rethoric to the same level of lunacy.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Klaus, that's a very impressive answer. And it's the type of answer you don't see much of, outside of academic and other expert circles -- certainly not very much in popular culture.

I do think that Bush is trying to exercise all the diplomatic options he has left, although admittedly they are much fewer than he had prior to the Iraq invasion. The prestige of the United States internationally isn't what it used to be.

They key here, it seems to me, if we are to avoid military confrontation is to find some way of persuading Russia and China to cut a secret deal with us to contain Iran. Either this, or the military option, seems to me to be the dilemma before us. Do we have the bargaining power to achieve this kind of arrangement? Do we have the skill to impose a de facto condominium of great powers, all without further alienating Iran in the process? Sadly, I'm not sure we do.

Your last point, emphasizing the need to calm the waters, is one that Gen. Wesley Clark also made a few days ago. This seems to be wise advice, but I'm afraid that more has to be done if we are to avoid the necessity of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran -- one that may be in the words of the Iranian leader, a global superpower -- that is both actively hostile and unremittingly destructive to American interests.

[Edited 2006-04-29 22:13:27]

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

I don't think the military option has much teeth as a threat at this point. Even an isolated strike (with very questionable benefits) could very well be an opportunity for Iran to declare war - and invade Iraq. They've got more than enough scores to settle, much opportunity for gain and they have a much larger and much better trained and equipped military (and a much larger population) than Saddam had. The shiite domino in Iraq is already tilted in Iran's favour when it's between the USA and Iran.

And Ahmadinejad (and his backers among the high clergy) are very much aware of the situation.

Saber rattling is pointless when your opponent knows you're bluffing.

So the concrete threat with economic and political discomfort is a less spectacular but probably more realistic approach.

In the end the essential point not just regarding Iran but in international relations as a whole is the replacement of unilateral interests with a system of common interests. US, german or even EU interests have no credible moral or political value in the long run.

Only credible shared interests can be the basis for long-term improvements. Europe has had to learn about this principle the hard way, but we've come to recognize that there is no viable alternative in the end; Meanwhile many US politicians still make grand speeches to their local constituencies pretending that US interests were somehow more blessed than anybody else's and that the whole world just had to be modeled to serve those particular interests.

That simply can't work any more than it didn't work with soviet or european national interests.

Problems like Ahmadinejad (and many related ones in the middle east) can only be really resolved when all players commit to a common framework under which all the respective interests will be recognized.

There have been numerous chances which were simply wasted to get going into that direction; And even though the Bush administration has recently done by far the most damage in that regard, pretty much everybody else has their own share of blame to carry as well.

I couldn't care less about the constant whining about presumable or real shortcomings of the EU, the UN or other collaborative structures; Fact is that such structures are a necessity if we want to overcome the tedious and idiotic egoism and shortsighted thinking that's been prevalent through almost all the history of mankind. The UN and other cooperative structures need much less whining and much more sincere commitment.

Iran has justified interests and rights as a community among other communities - whether the possession of nuclear technology is a rightful part of those interests or not is far less clear than western commentators and politicians make it out to be.

But in the larger picture the malicious idiocy of Ahmadinejad is more related to the state of mind of a Bush administration driven by the likes of Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld than anybody could desire. International affairs are not just a primitive zero-sum affair (which both sides apparently believe; that both make heavy use of religious pretenses is another striking similarity).

Iran's transgression is not in counteracting perceived US interests; Their transgression is in screwing up the development potential of the whole region. And that is where a pressure point arises which can be used; But it won't do any good in the long run if the entire architecture of the region isn't changed fundamentally. And that will require some tough choices for many of the acting powers with "interests" there... (yes, the Israel/Palestine conflict is and remains one of the main issues)


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
Even an isolated strike (with very questionable benefits) could very well be an opportunity for Iran to declare war - and invade Iraq.

The US has 15 Combat Brigades in Iraq. It would nothing short of suicide for the Iranian Army to do that. They would be destroyed in a matter of days.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1731 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
The US has 15 Combat Brigades in Iraq. It would nothing short of suicide for the Iranian Army to do that. They would be destroyed in a matter of days.

Please remind yourself of the very similar hubris prior to the Iraq invasion and how that one turned out, under much easier(!!!) preconditions.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
Please remind yourself of the very similar hubris prior to the Iraq invasion and how that one turned out, under much easier(!!!) preconditions.

Klaus, your comprehensive response prior to the post in which the above appears requires that I spend some time reviewing it and formulating a reply. Since I have to leave the computer in a couple of minutes, I cannot provide that reply until I return.

However, let me say, for now, that it is as inappropriate to underestimate the United States military as it is to over-rate our success in Iraq. The armed forces of the United States and our allies destroyed and routed Iraqi army units in a matter of days. American casualties were, for a war of this nature, extremely low. The mismatch of forces between the world's largest armed forces and the world's fourth-largest was never clearer: It was a superpower's military against a Third World army, and the outcome was never in doubt. There is little doubt that our military victory, considered as such, against virtually every unit of the formal Iraqi armed forces was complete and total within a few weeks. The President was not entirely in error when he declared shortly after our incursion that major military operations against Iraq were complete.

Thus, the lesson of Iraq is that a full frontal attack by Iran against American forces in the former would result in a similarly quick and devastating victory.

Further, it is untrue that the U.S. has no current military option against Iran, as it remains possible to engage in highly destructive aerial attacks upon a few hours' notice using advanced cruise missiles and bombs.

It is worth adding, however, that the President at no time denied, even during his declaration of the end of major military operations in Iraq, that the road ahead toward the completion of American policy goals there was long and difficult. In fact, he announced that the opposite was true. As events since then have proved, the risk lies in non-military, guerilla, and terror-centered retribution, which we are seeing in Iraq, and might very well see if the West attacks Iran.

[Edited 2006-04-30 00:03:11]

User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Quoting TomTurner (Reply 7):

The United States won't do this because they would lose far more than they would gain.

In oder to 'target' terrorists, they need intelligence. A large amount of that intelligence is from foreign sources.

If you piss off other countries, they will no longer cooperate with sharing intelligence, and in the the United States will be left literally in the dark and 10 times worse off.

Remember that before the terrorists attacks in New York, British, Italian, German, Jordanian, Indian, Russian, Argentine, Israeli, Egyptian, French intelligence warned Washington of rumours of a 'large attack' (Complete 911 Timeline), and even then the US did nothing. Imagine if that cooperation was lost.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 17):
However, let me say, for now, that it is as inappropriate to underestimate the United States military as it is to over-rate our success in Iraq.

I have no doubt about the amount of damage the US forces are capable of inflicting (although isolated strikes may not be really effective since at least some of the iranian facilities appear to be bunkered) - the question is whether any constructive objectives can be achieved that way. And that's the tricky part.

Especially when everything's falling apart in Iraq behind you when you're in the process of opening up the next bigger can of worms next door...!


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

Kill them before they kill you. That's how you deal with terrorist scum. There is no other way.

Welcome to the new world of thinking folks. They are going to get their comeuppance. And I'm all for it.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 20):
Kill them before they kill you. That's how you deal with terrorist scum. There is no other way.

Does that include innocent bystanders? Children? Or does such a thing not exist in your view? How do you know who's a terrorist? Do they have a tattoo? Maybe a uniform?

[Edited 2006-04-30 01:19:29]

User currently offlineJutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 21):

Does that include innocent bystanders? Children? Or does such a thing not exist in your view? How do you know who's a terrorist? Do they have a tattoo? Maybe a uniform?

They generally wear diapers on their heads.

j/k. Big grin


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 20):
Kill them before they kill you. That's how you deal with terrorist scum. There is no other way.

Too bad that outside of your video game world terrorists are not that easily distinguishable...!  Yeah sure  crazy 


User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
Too bad that outside of your video game world terrorists are not that easily distinguishable...! Yeah sure crazy

Exactly. I think some people need to realise we live in the real world. If you go around killing people, it's just going to make other people want to kill you even more...  banghead 

PS: Klaus, I was very impressed by your previous responses. Have added you to my RU list  thumbsup 


25 11Bravo : You might find it useful to distinguish between traditional (symmetric) military-v-military conflict as opposed to counter-insurgency (asymmetric) op
26 GDB : Clipperhawaii I suspect cannot answer the question Jan posed, about US acceptance and harbouring of other people's terrorists. But hey, most are not a
27 Post contains images Clipperhawaii : Boy, you sure do have it pegged don't you?   Well, you don't. As for that "question"? Why should I answer his question? It's not an issue with me. T
28 AerospaceFan : Klaus, you may be right. But the problem I have with your overall analysis, as I think about it, is also the problem I have with the above excerpt: B
29 11Bravo : The Great Chicken-Hawk speaks! What a bunch of nonsensical, simple-minded, redneck fear-mongering drivel. Once again you prove yourself to be nothing
30 GDB : Clipper, you really have no clue have you? All the 'kill 'em first' posturing does not wash, does not hide an irrational fear. It is rational worry mo
31 Post contains images Clipperhawaii : After reading your rant (which was ALL over the palce and was without any doubt, the most incoherent post I have ever seen you write) the only thing
32 Doona : Then how are you different from the terrorists?
33 GDB : Clipper, it was only incoherent to you, with your half arsed John Wayne view of things. Truth is-you have no answer to my challenge-how can these 'all
34 AerospaceFan : GDB, in an age when a small group can cause city-wide harm, wouldn't it be prudent to use military force if they are out ouf reach of the police? We'r
35 Post contains images Clipperhawaii : Destroy society? Or destroy innocent lives? One life is not worth losing to these people. Not one. You seem to think that it is and it is inevitable.
36 Doona : Don't you agree that military force is not aimed at fighting these small groups? The US has used military might to fight terrorism in the last 5 year
37 Itsjustme : Can you define "them" please? And then, when you respond with "By them, I mean the terrorists". please take that a step further and tell me how I can
38 AerospaceFan : The U.S. has used the military to fight terrorism since 9/11/01, and in doing so, it has eliminated two major actual or potential state sponsors of t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Senate Refuses To Beef Up Border Protection posted Fri Jul 15 2005 20:25:13 by Slider
How To Hook Up Two Computer Power Supplies? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 09:54:36 by Lehpron
Frist To GOP Candidates: Don't Mention Iraq/Terror posted Thu Oct 26 2006 02:34:33 by Falcon84
Mexico Mulling UN Action Against U.S. Fence posted Tue Oct 10 2006 00:04:51 by AerospaceFan
My Teacher Forgot To Turn Up For Class posted Tue Sep 5 2006 04:08:53 by PureKiwi
I Need To Speed Up Audio Playback - Help! posted Tue Jul 11 2006 17:52:54 by RobK
Ex Girlfriend Wants To Meet Up. Yay Or Nay? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 05:55:45 by AA61Hvy
Ways To Spice Up Salmon As A Meal posted Sat Feb 25 2006 04:16:35 by USAFHummer
How To Set Up An E-business posted Tue Dec 27 2005 12:42:29 by Toulouse
US House Votes To Wall Up Mexico Border posted Sun Dec 18 2005 05:56:38 by N506CR