dude...they attacked emabassies, ships, 9/11, 3/11.......Turquoise wrote:
...which is its greatest weakness. It may be trickier to fight a nonconventional enemy, but it's also easier to keep them marginalized.usmarine wrote:
al-q doesnt have a country.....
Turquoise wrote:
Working with foreign governments -- like in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Such as?Turquoise wrote:
There are much more cost effective and much less destructive ways to fight Al Quida.
Putting diplomatic pressure on countries to give their people more rights -- this has been done throughout the Middle East for a while now with various countries.
And finally... putting out counter-propaganda. There is plenty of anti-Western propaganda in the Middle East, and in retaliation, we produce and distribute some of our own pro-West material -- but we try to be subtle about it.
For the most part, the affinity many people in this region have for our media and for our freedoms is evidence enough that, over time, these societies begin to produce their own needed social change.
Iran is a pretty dramatic example of this.
usmarine wrote:
true...like they way clinton did. oh wait.
Yep. You can't stop every attack. That's life.usmarine wrote:
dude...they attacked emabassies, ships, 9/11, 3/11.......Turquoise wrote:
...which is its greatest weakness. It may be trickier to fight a nonconventional enemy, but it's also easier to keep them marginalized.usmarine wrote:
al-q doesnt have a country.....
where would you like to fight them?
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-06 18:30:49)
oh my. please explain that.Turquoise wrote:
For the record, Clinton's air strikes were both effective and cheap.
That's CNN speaking.usmarine wrote:
oh my. please explain that.Turquoise wrote:
For the record, Clinton's air strikes were both effective and cheap.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-06 18:47:28)
i would tell you, after you tell me when that would stop....Turquoise wrote:
Tell me exactly how an invasion that costs far more than air strikes that were keeping a weak dictator contained is a superior choice.
The cost isn't even comparable. We would've had to continue the air strikes for decades upon decades to equal the cost of the invasion. With drones, it would be even cheaper in the long run.usmarine wrote:
i would tell you, after you tell me when that would stop....Turquoise wrote:
Tell me exactly how an invasion that costs far more than air strikes that were keeping a weak dictator contained is a superior choice.
a) illegal no fly zoneTurquoise wrote:
The cost isn't even comparable. We would've had to continue the air strikes for decades upon decades to equal the cost of the invasion. With drones, it would be even cheaper in the long run.usmarine wrote:
i would tell you, after you tell me when that would stop....Turquoise wrote:
Tell me exactly how an invasion that costs far more than air strikes that were keeping a weak dictator contained is a superior choice.
So, unless you're assuming we were going to just air strike Iraq indefinitely without any gains whatsoever, I don't quite understand your perspective here.
Does there need to be one? We've kept North Korea at a stalemate for decades now. The best part about that situation is that now, Kim has the option of either continuing to act crazy and eventually arouse enough international support for invasion or actually behave and work towards a productive end game.usmarine wrote:
a) illegal no fly zoneTurquoise wrote:
The cost isn't even comparable. We would've had to continue the air strikes for decades upon decades to equal the cost of the invasion. With drones, it would be even cheaper in the long run.usmarine wrote:
i would tell you, after you tell me when that would stop....
So, unless you're assuming we were going to just air strike Iraq indefinitely without any gains whatsoever, I don't quite understand your perspective here.
b) like i said, what would be the end game?
I'd much rather Iran had have invaded than us.usmarine wrote:
since we are playing the what if game...what if iran invaded eventually. would that be ok with you? because i agree he was weak and you have to believe iran sensed blood in the water.
3x as many dead Iraqis, yes. Not necessarily that many dead soldiers of ours.usmarine wrote:
interesting. i would assume three times as many people dead and twice as many people fleeing but i guess that would work.
Afghanistan. and eventually, Pakistan.usmarine wrote:
deal. so, where do we fight al-q during all of this?
It would be rather similar to the original plan we had with the Iran-Iraq War.usmarine wrote:
i know they didnt. so, we could conduct ops in afghan and trashcanistan while iran invades iraq? would be an interesting scenario.
Carter Doctrine wrote:
The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests (OIL) in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil,"
This was actually cited in the Iraq war resolution.Iraq Liberation Act wrote:
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
They work but my clothes don't smell of April freshness ..lol A minor inconvenience.usmarine wrote:
pffftt..... BS. didnt happen. some of us remember this stuff. sadly, the current college kids suck on the tit of their douchebag college prof who fails to mention this stuff. i love you kmar. btw, how are the purex sheets?
The reason it didn't work is that we underestimated how crazy Saddam was. We thought we could continue using him as an antagonist for Iran, but it was clear he was willing to attack our allies like Kuwait. Once that happened, the air strikes eventually became our holding action.usmarine wrote:
i dunno turq. our old strategy was the old business saying. if everyone is mining for gold, we want to be the ones selling the pick axes. we tried that. didnt work too well.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-06 20:13:06)
I don't buy that Turq. We knew more about Saddam than our government would like us to know. The problem is our government never thinks two steps ahead.Turquoise wrote:
The reason it didn't work is that we underestimated how crazy Saddam was. We thought we could continue using him as an antagonist for Iran, but it was clear he was willing to attack our allies like Kuwait. Once that happened, the air strikes eventually became our holding action.usmarine wrote:
i dunno turq. our old strategy was the old business saying. if everyone is mining for gold, we want to be the ones selling the pick axes. we tried that. didnt work too well.
That doesn't render the original strategy invalid.