AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:10 am

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]
What's fair is fair.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:14 am

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?
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:17 am

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.
What's fair is fair.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:18 am

Without approval of the host country this could spell disaster for the United States.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:20 am

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]
What's fair is fair.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:37 am

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]
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:05 am

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.
 
TomTurner
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:14 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:13 am

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
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:03 am

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
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:58 am

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]
What's fair is fair.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:49 am

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.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:19 pm

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
What's fair is fair.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:01 am

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.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:09 am

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]
What's fair is fair.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:49 am

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)
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:24 am

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!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:42 am

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.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:55 am

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]
What's fair is fair.
 
Derico
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:56 am

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
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:26 am

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...!
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:30 am

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"
 
LeonB1985
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:21 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:15 am

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]
From the construction site that is better-known as London Heathrow Airport
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:30 am

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
nothing
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:49 am

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 
 
LeonB1985
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:21 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:54 am

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 
From the construction site that is better-known as London Heathrow Airport
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:02 am

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.

You might find it useful to distinguish between traditional (symmetric) military-v-military conflict as opposed to counter-insurgency (asymmetric) operations. You have suggested that Iran might engage in the former and then you use the latter as an example of how that might turn out.

Success in counter-insurgency situations is primarily a function of political, cultural, and economic factors. Military combat power cannot be used to address those factors for the most part. The Bush administration has utterly failed to consider those issues in Iraq and that's why we are where we are today. We have won the war and lost the peace, but to confuse our political incompetence in Iraq with military vulnerability from the conventional forces of Iran is delusional and without merit.

A more traditional symmetric conflict between the US and Iran is a completely different story. In that conflict almost all the factors are military. I cannot think of a single advantage that would give the Iranian Army even the remotest hope of success.

There are two particular factors that come to mind that would preclude the Iranian Army from conducting such an operation in the first place let alone succeed at it.

Logistics is the foundation on which all military operations depend. The Iranian Army has no capability whatsoever to logistically sustain offensive combat operations for the force structure that would be necessary to defeat the US military in Iraq. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

Success on the modern battlefield is predicated on air superiority. There is absolutely no chance the Iranians could achieve that precondition. The entire Iranian Air Force would be a smouldering pile of ashes in two hours.

In 2003, the US military invaded and occupied Iraq in a bit under three weeks. They completely defeated and destroyed the Iraqi armed forces in that process while suffering only a handful of causalities.

In 1991 the Coalition forces destroyed more than 20 Iraqi Army divisions in 100 hours of ground combat, once again, while only suffering minor casualties.

Those are the models that are useful to examine when looking at a symmetric military conflict between Iran and the United States. It would result in the complete and absolute destruction of the Iranian armed forces in the field.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:17 am

Clipperhawaii I suspect cannot answer the question Jan posed, about US acceptance and harbouring of other people's terrorists.

But hey, most are not as frightened by a very, very tiny chance of being killed by a terrorist, as him perhaps.
(As a US citizen, much more likely to be killed by general gun crime, as a UK citizen, I'm more likely to be killed by being stabbed).

Pakistan's president in a recent interview, has bitterly complained about US drones using HIS airspace, without permission, to kill people in HIS county.
Noting the recent one missed the target, killed civillians.
Also noting what a PR boost this gave terrorists.

This guy has put himself at huge risk since Sept 11th, being a vital US ally, he has himself nearly been assassinated more than once for doing just this.
If the US lose him, for whatever reason, any war on terror would have just suffered a very major blow.

Yet look at the crass disregard the US treats him with, contempt even.

From the perspective here, despite living very near, working at LHR, socialising most in London and using the underground to get there, I refuse to be bothered by any terror threat.
Used the underground the day after last July's bombs, I had a concert to go to, how else could I get there, fuck the terrorists, I've brought a ticket.

Beyond that, why big up a bunch of barmy bigoted zealots?
The idea that Islamic terrorism is a threat on the level of Hitler (from a UK perspective in this case), or the Cold War nuclear stalemate we all grew up with, is nonsense.
They can NOT destroy our nations, or our societies, unless we let them.
Judging by the last US election, by what those like Clipper etc post on this subject, in your case, Bin Laden IS winning.
(I also object to the overreaction, in extra legislation terms, of the current UK government's response, but they face real opposition on this, even playing the 'July 7th' card is wearing out now).

Military action is of very limited use against terrorism, why not make sure you have enough speakers of languages the terrorists most use where they are concentrated, having your vast array of intel agencies talk to each other, do the long, tedious, hard work in trying to penetrate terrorist networks?

The US Government now admits Iraq WILL be a terrorist haven whatever happens now.
Bottom line, Iraq was attacked because it WAS virtually defenceless (or has 5 time draft dodger Cheney put it 'do-able').
That is why North Korea is secure, why even without nukes yet, Iran probably is too, no years of sanctions and hollowed out military there.
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:52 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 26):
Clipperhawaii I suspect cannot answer the question Jan posed, about US acceptance and harbouring of other people's terrorists.

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. The terrorists I speak of are seeking to do harm to ME or more specifically to those who, like me (read that as Americans) who have a specific love for "Our/My" way of life and would like to keep it that way.

Scared? No, not scared. Intelligent. Intelligent to see the world without any left leaning "oh let it go, it will be all right mentality". You can check your rose tinted glasses at any door.

Quoting GDB (Reply 26):
Yet look at the crass disregard the US treats him with, contempt even.

LOL. Sure. What ever you say. You are such the expert on President Perez Musharraf, Pakistan and the relationship the U.S.has. (You are not)

One thing I can and will continue to say is, "kill them before they kill you". That's how you end the matter. Especially with radical Islamic fascists you seem in such a hurry to be sympathetic with.

"Kill them before they kill you". Great policy in my world. What about "your" world of let live no matter what? After all, your wet fish handshake is what terrorists feed on. Not "my" willingness to zap them first. Think about it, and don't be so "sympathetic" Neville.

As for the comment about innocent bystanders, women, and children, I won't even dignify that idiotic question with an answer.

Quoting GDB (Reply 26):
most are not as frightened by a very, very tiny chance of being killed by a terrorist

I wonder if that women options trader thought that as she jumped out of the 91st floor of 1 World Trade Center on some bright Tuesday morning a few years ago. I’ll be her biggest concern that day was her daughter and her trip to the dentist for a check up the following day. I'm for eliminating that "very, tiny chance" pal.

For the record, I refuse to let any terrorist control or dictate my life and how I run it. Rest assured however, I sure as hell want to see his life dictated.... by ending it.

Welcome to the 21st century fellas. You figured it out yet?

[Edited 2006-04-30 11:56:16]
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:24 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):

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.

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: By strong implication, the military option is ruled out, out of hand. By the same token, it may be argued that the infliction of massive damage is not entirely useless even in this modern age.

Rather than engage in tit-for-tat argumentation as to the merits of such damage, I prefer at this point to criticize the assumption in today's world that is implicit in your commentary, which is that the military is no longer an effective instrument of national policy. For this is indeed the underlying premise I see here, and I would question it.

The use of military force appears to have become less and less acceptable to internationalists over the years because of what you have astutely identified as the need for consensus-based action in contradistinction to unilateral leadership. But this need arises from a second assumption -- a fundamental belief that the international "community", so-called, can reach it.

If no such consensus can be reached, and if military action is ruled out as cruel and archaic, then it seems to me that potential victims of assertive and lawless regimes that may intend harm to Western interests are left entirely bereft of all options. This may be a logical result of the operation of both assumptions, but it cannot necessarily be the only result that should follow.

In sum, what has been said of the Constitution may be said here, as well: The UN Charter is not a suicide pact, and the need for international consensus does not create a world where national interests are irrelevant.

[Edited 2006-04-30 12:27:51]
What's fair is fair.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon May 01, 2006 12:53 am

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 27):
"Kill them before they kill you". Great policy in my world.

The Great Chicken-Hawk speaks! What a bunch of nonsensical, simple-minded, redneck fear-mongering drivel. Once again you prove yourself to be nothing but another right-wing extremest completely out of touch with reality. The world isn't a Rambo movie.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon May 01, 2006 3:55 am

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 more if you were in NY or DC on 11 Sept 01.
Everyone else? Get on with life.

Welcome to the 21st century?
How about 'welcome to the world?'

My parents as kids, grandparents as adults, had to put up with bombing, often a Sept 11th death toll weekly, relatives literally bombed out of their homes.
Later, those funny but lethal V-1's, then the much more dangerous if inaccurate, V-2's, the ones no one heard coming.
Never went on about it though, you'd have to ask a specfic question to get anything out of them on the period.
Facing an enemy that could potentially destroy their society, at least in the early years.
If you really think Bin Laden and co are anything remotely a similar threat, go get therapy.

So it would be a bit off for me, growing up in a peaceful nation, go all Clipperhawaii about a few IRA bombs (funded by some ignorant c**ts in the US), as it was of course a total nothing to what a previous generation had to contend with.

Though Bin Laden and co are a more substantial terror threat-on the level of the Nazis? Joe Stalin and the Cold War?
Of course not.
THEY think they are, they also thought they alone drove the USSR from Afghanistan (in the same way many in US have this notion Reagan 'won' the Cold War).
While a factor in the USSR failure in Afghanistan, they were not a deciding one, a new leader who wanted out of such things and a lot more besides, was.

Bin Laden also thought his band of 'Arab Afghan' brothers could have stopped a full scale Iraqi advance into Saudi in 1990.
The Saudi rejection of this idea, coupled with the invitation of US and other troops, was the start of Bin Laden's path to terror.

So Bin Laden and co, have this inflated sense of their own ability to threaten Western society, but so too do some in the US it seems, so do many in US politics for short term advantage.
Doing OBL's work for him, being too dense to see this.

So Clipper, why not purge yourself of your fears.
By maybe explaining to us how OBL and similar could actually, physically destroy your society. Invasion? Mass carpet bombing raids from some as yet undiscovered air force?

Me-I just get on with life.
Fully aware of the terrorist threat, like many in London though more a sense of 'here we go again', than anything else.

The only mistake the UK made prior to Sept 11th, was not listening enough to repeated warnings from French Intel.
Who have, lest we forget, prevented some very major attacks on their soil, such as the attempt to blow up the crowded Christmas markets in Strasbourg in 2000, six years before, prevented an attempt to use a hijacked A310 to crash on to Paris.
Also, they have tracked, found, put away more terrorists, counting back from way before Sept 11.

Ever heard of the DGSE? Probably not, don't recall any blockbuster movies and TV shows about them.
I'd take their record so far over the USA's, and the UK's truth be told.

So perhaps an answer to what ails poor Clipper, these fears of his.
Go live in France!
(Don't forget the trip report now!)
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon May 01, 2006 4:37 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
Fully aware of the terrorist threat, like many in London though more a sense of 'here we go again', than anything else.

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 worth quoting here is the following.

Quoting GDB (Reply 30):
Fully aware of the terrorist threat, like many in London though more a sense of 'here we go again', than anything else.

That about sums it up. "Here we go again"? Well Neville, good luck and live with what you fail to recognize is a threat and treat it just as a fact of life.

Enjoy your tangent too (especially about the IRA) while you mutter on the sidelines of the world and keep searching for whatever it is you are looking for. No need to post a trip report however. It wouldn't be very interesting I am afraid. 

I would re-read the article and my post if I were you.

You have a wonderful day thinking about it.

[Edited 2006-04-30 21:48:10]
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon May 01, 2006 9:54 pm

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 27):

For the record, I refuse to let any terrorist control or dictate my life and how I run it. Rest assured however, I sure as hell want to see his life dictated.... by ending it.

Then how are you different from the terrorists?
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Mon May 01, 2006 11:48 pm

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 'allah akabar' spouting misfits actually destroy your society-actually threaten you?
You cannot.

Neville as in the late 1930's PM-he who started the large re-armanment programme from 1936?
(While Henry Ford who liked 'Mein Kampf', or Lindbergh went around with his barely hidden support for Hitler and his own anti-semitism?)

Best to use stuff like that if you have more than an elementary school knowlege of the subject.
Neville was ultimately wrong-but always had a 'Plan B', play for time to re-arm.
Besides-your poster boys in Washington were not on the ball 5 years ago either were they-despite some FBI operatives in the field giving increasingly severe warnings in the weeks and months before.

Bottom line, as often seen on here, you have a paranoia about terrorists-also thinking they can be beaten from 30,000 feet.
I don't, I also accept that military action will not have much of a place in countering them, it's mostly a police/intel thing.
Not great for a quick spot on the news with fancy videos.

Afghanistan was the exception-but Bush, Rumsfeld and co even managed to ultimately screw that up, with their lack of attention and obsessions elsewhere.

Booked that ticket to France yet?
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Tue May 02, 2006 8:24 am

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're not ruling out the use of law enforcement in the pursuit of justice. After all, there was just a trial in California of two terrorist suspects who were apprehended by civilian authorities. This doesn't mean that it would be unwise to use other means available to apprehend suspects or to deal with a threat when civilian authorities are helpless to do so.
What's fair is fair.
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Tue May 02, 2006 12:09 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 33):
how can these 'allah akabar' spouting misfits actually destroy your society-actually threaten you?

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. Defeatist!

Quoting GDB (Reply 33):
Neville was ultimately wrong

Yes, he was wrong. Glad you see the analogy in that. So are you.

Quoting GDB (Reply 33):
it's mostly a police/intel thing.

Agreed... and when the intel is ripe you pull the trigger to prevent one of those innocent lives from being killed. Kill them before they kill you. Shall I repeat it again for you?

Quoting GDB (Reply 33):
Booked that ticket to France yet?

No. But I did book a trip to Italy in September.  Smile

A bit of advice for you before I end my dialog with you. Do not over analyze things. You confuse the issue and the eventual understating of it. As for the other points you bring up, they are nothing more than an attempt to stoke embers to try to start some fire. You failed in your attempt. Again. Your fire is now completely out.

I'm moving on now to more important things. And yes, it's still "Kill them before they kill you".

Aloha pal. Got a match?

LOL
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Tue May 02, 2006 5:07 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 34):
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?

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 years, and where has that left you? Sure, no more huge attacks on US soil, the the terrorists are still there. Madrid, London, Bali, Egypt, you name it. IMO, if the terrorists are out of reach of the police, give the police greater reach.

Soldiers are made to fight other soldiers, so when we start treating the terrorists as other soldiers, we give them legitimacy.

Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Tue May 02, 2006 6:49 pm

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 35):
Kill them before they kill you

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 identify these terrorists. Will they be wearing a big "T" on their chest?
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror

Wed May 03, 2006 5:46 pm

Quoting Doona (Reply 36):
The US has used military might to fight terrorism in the last 5 years, and where has that left you? Sure, no more huge attacks on US soil, the the terrorists are still there.

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 terrorism (Afghanistan and Iraq), and neutralized a third (Libya). The use of police forces would not have achieved these results.

Quote:
Madrid, London, Bali, Egypt, you name it. IMO, if the terrorists are out of reach of the police, give the police greater reach.

Then they essentially become paramilitaries that are deployed overseas. What's the difference, if so, between such forces and police forces, except in name? Worse, you then allow civilian forces the same kind of authority as militaries, which is not what a democracy promotes.
What's fair is fair.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, LittleFokker, ltbewr, photopilot, seb146, WarRI1 and 14 guests