Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
And what should've happened in Afghanistan:
SAN'A, Yemen —  Yemeni security forces stormed an Al Qaeda hide-out Wednesday in a principle militant stronghold in the country's west, setting off clashes, officials said, as a security chief vowed to fight the group's powerful local branch until it was eliminated.

A government statement said at least one suspected Al Qaeda member was arrested during the fighting in Hudaydah province. The province, along Yemen's Red Sea coast, was home to most of the assailants in a bombing and shooting attack outside the U.S. Embassy in 2008 that killed 10 Yemeni guards and four civilians.

"The (Interior) Ministry will continue tracking down Al Qaeda terrorists and will continue its strikes against the group until it is totally eliminated," said Deputy Interior Minister Brig. Gen. Saleh al-Zawari.

He was speaking to senior military officials at a meeting in Mareb, one of three provinces where Al Qaeda militants are believed to have taken shelter.

The group's growing presence in Yemen, an impoverished and lawless country on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula, has drawn attention with the attempted attack on a U.S. airliner on Friday. U.S. investigators say the Nigerian suspect in the attack told them that he received training and instructions from Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula set up its Yemen base in January when operatives from Saudi Arabia and Yemen merged.

A security official who gave more details on Wednesday's raid said it resulted from a tip and targeted a home five miles (eight kilometers) north of the Bajil district. He said one suspected Al Qaeda member was injured and several who fled were being pursued.

The owner of the home, a sympathizer of the group, was arrested, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

Yemen will continue to coordinate its military efforts with the United States to track down Al Qaeda in several areas of the country, said Tarek al-Shami, spokesman of the ruling National Congress Party.

The U.S. has increasingly provided intelligence, surveillance and training to Yemeni forces during the past year, and has provided some firepower, a senior U.S. defense official said recently, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive security issues. Some of that assistance may be through the expanded use of unmanned drones, and the U.S. is providing funding to Yemen for helicopters and other equipment.

The Pentagon recently said it poured nearly $70 million in military aid into Yemen this year — compared with none in 2008.

More details surfaced Wednesday on the Nigerian man suspected in Friday's attempted airliner attack. While in Yemen, he led a devout Islamic life, shunning TV and music and avoiding women, said students and staff at an institute where he studied Arabic.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab spent two periods in Yemen, from 2004-2005 and from August to December of this year, just before the attempted attack, Yemeni officials have said. Administrators at the institute said Wednesday he was enrolled at the school during both periods to study Arabic.

Abdulmutallab showed little interest in study during his brief time at the San'a Institute for the Arabic Language this year, which coincided with Ramadan, the holy Muslim month of fasting that began in late August.

"When I asked him why he wasn't studying, he would tell me he wanted to devote his time for worship during Ramadan," Ahmed Hassan, a 28-year-old Arabic language student from Singapore, told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Hassan said he was stunned when he heard reports that Abdulmutallab, 23, told U.S. officials after his arrest he received training and instructions from Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. He said he never suspected the Nigerian of belonging to the terrorist network.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the attempted attack on the airliner, which was bound for Detroit from Amsterdam. It said it was retaliation for a U.S. operation against the group in Yemen. More than 60 militants were killed in airstrikes this month carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. intelligence assistance.

Yemen issued Abdulmutallab a visa to study Arabic. Yemeni officials have said authorities in Yemen were reassured that he had visas from a number of countries engaged in the fight against terrorism, including the United States.

Staff and students at the institute said Abdulmutallab spent at most one month at the school. That has raised questions about what he did during the rest of his stay, which continued into December.

While in Yemen, Abdulmutallab led the life of an ultraconservative Muslim. He avoided mixing with female classmates, listening to music or watching television, fellow students and staff at the institute said.

Hassan said Abdulmutallab would start his day by going to the mosque for dawn prayers and then would spend hours in his room reading the Koran, Islam's holy book.

Ahmed Mohammed, one of the teachers at the institute, said Abdulmutallab spent the last 10 days of the holy month of Ramadan sequestered in a mosque.

He says Abdulmutallab attended barely four hours of the 20-hour course Ahmed taught.

Youssef al-Khawlani, an administrator at the institute, recalled how upset Abdulmutallab was when he heard the ring tone of his phone, set to a popular song.

"When he heard it, he told me I should stop it because it was haram (forbidden by Islam)," said al-Khawlani. "He also would not watch TV."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581467,00.html
We were doing it right in Afghanistan by supporting the Northern Alliance with limited ground forces. Letting the Pentagon turn it into a conventional war was the wrong move. Provide funding, training, and air support to our allies of convenience and let them do the damage for us. Just have to be honest with our proxies about our goals and let them know it's not unlimited support.

The Pentagon and conventional forces will ALWAYS want to turn ANY fight into a conventional fight because it means combat promotions.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-30 09:16:06)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7002
As Machiavelli once said "A good hunter must go out and hunt once in a while."
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
And what should have happened in Afghanistan...

...The Yemen AQ cell is a handful while the Taliban controlled quite a bit of the country.  I'm not sure if they'd be able to pull it off without troops.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

And what should have happened in Afghanistan...

...The Yemen AQ cell is a handful while the Taliban controlled quite a bit of the country.  I'm not sure if they'd be able to pull it off without troops.
The Northern Alliance kicked out the Taliban with just a handful of Special Forces troops on the ground to support them and call in air support as needed. We didn't send in conventional forces until well after the Taliban was routed. It would've been long and protracted with no sure outcome (which is no different from what we have now) but we were better off just lightly supporting the NA, handing them weapons and money and having them fight their own war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
Agreed.  I'm pointing out a difference in size though.  Do you see the AQ in Yemen large enough to have a civil war?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

Agreed.  I'm pointing out a difference in size though.  Do you see the AQ in Yemen large enough to have a civil war?
No, but AQ has never been big. When we invaded Afghanistan we weren't fighting AQ, we were fighting the Taliban.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
John, you and I might disagree on other topics, but on this, we definitely agree.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

John, you and I might disagree on other topics, but on this, we definitely agree.
So you agreed with Rumsfelds strategy?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

Agreed.  I'm pointing out a difference in size though.  Do you see the AQ in Yemen large enough to have a civil war?
No, but AQ has never been big. When we invaded Afghanistan we weren't fighting AQ, we were fighting the Taliban.
Well, I think a large commitment was necessary.  It didn't have to be by the US, it could have just been the Afghans.

But...I don't have a problem with fighting the Taliban.  I don't like it either, but I certainly don't think it was a terrible decision (besides committing troops in two locations at once...)
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

John, you and I might disagree on other topics, but on this, we definitely agree.
So you agreed with Rumsfelds strategy?
I agreed with the part where we aided foreign governments without actually invading countries.  I would much rather funnel arms or support in general to a government that we can negotiate with than actually invade some country.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Cybargs wrote:

As Machiavelli once said "A good hunter must go out and hunt once in a while."
Did he say that?

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

John, you and I might disagree on other topics, but on this, we definitely agree.
So you agreed with Rumsfelds strategy?
I agreed with the part where we aided foreign governments without actually invading countries.  I would much rather funnel arms or support in general to a government that we can negotiate with than actually invade some country.
Better to throw money at countries that we can mildly influence than use it ourselves, 'cause an American casualty, well that's unacceptable.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

As Machiavelli once said "A good hunter must go out and hunt once in a while."
Did he say that?

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


So you agreed with Rumsfelds strategy?
I agreed with the part where we aided foreign governments without actually invading countries.  I would much rather funnel arms or support in general to a government that we can negotiate with than actually invade some country.
Better to throw money at countries that we can mildly influence than use it ourselves, 'cause an American casualty, well that's unacceptable.
Not unacceptable. Needless. Why die when you can pay someone else to die for you?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not unacceptable. Needless. Why die when you can pay someone else to die for you?
Because it's highly immoral.

Since you had to ask the question that answer obviously means nothing, so here's a different one.

Money is a means to power, not power in itself. You can bring people to power in a poor region with money, but how can they be expected to stay on the leash once they have the regional strength to go hunting on their own? They're going to turn on the handler as soon as there is no threat bigger than themselves in the area, and once that happens you're back to square one. Example, Afghanistan post Russian conflict. You know what the results of that were.

The only way to avoid that situation is to maintain the threat as well, but if you do that then you're fostering instability in the region forever. That's the worst possible situation. Instability means unpredictability, the most dangerous thing to anyone anywhere. You can't justify that when you have the resource to do otherwise.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not unacceptable. Needless. Why die when you can pay someone else to die for you?
Because it's highly immoral.

Since you had to ask the question that answer obviously means nothing, so here's a different one.

Money is a means to power, not power in itself. You can bring people to power in a poor region with money, but how can they be expected to stay on the leash once they have the regional strength to go hunting on their own? They're going to turn on the handler as soon as there is no threat bigger than themselves in the area, and once that happens you're back to square one. Example, Afghanistan post Russian conflict. You know what the results of that were.

The only way to avoid that situation is to maintain the threat as well, but if you do that then you're fostering instability in the region forever. That's the worst possible situation. Instability means unpredictability, the most dangerous thing to anyone anywhere. You can't justify that when you have the resource to do otherwise.
Why would they turn on the handler? Where's your proof? We didn't aid the Taliban in fighting the Soviets, they came later.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
We aided Afghan resistance to the USSR, we gave them money, trained them, gave them weapons. Slightly different from what I said we dropped them all together, as soon as the Russians were out we stopped the aid money completely. Those highly trained soldiers without a war to fight made the group now known as Al-Qaeda.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not unacceptable. Needless. Why die when you can pay someone else to die for you?
Because it's highly immoral.

Since you had to ask the question that answer obviously means nothing, so here's a different one.

Money is a means to power, not power in itself. You can bring people to power in a poor region with money, but how can they be expected to stay on the leash once they have the regional strength to go hunting on their own? They're going to turn on the handler as soon as there is no threat bigger than themselves in the area, and once that happens you're back to square one. Example, Afghanistan post Russian conflict. You know what the results of that were.

The only way to avoid that situation is to maintain the threat as well, but if you do that then you're fostering instability in the region forever. That's the worst possible situation. Instability means unpredictability, the most dangerous thing to anyone anywhere. You can't justify that when you have the resource to do otherwise.
Well, the absolute best choice of all is to not get involved until you can get the majority of the world onboard for a multilateral invasion.  If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention, that's the best case scenario -- because then you have the latitude to do whatever is necessary to win.

Basically, the idea is...  be isolationist until the world begs for help.  They appreciate the help much more then.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We aided Afghan resistance to the USSR, we gave them money, trained them, gave them weapons. Slightly different from what I said we dropped them all together, as soon as the Russians were out we stopped the aid money completely. Those highly trained soldiers without a war to fight made the group now known as Al-Qaeda.
Which is why I said in my original post that you spell out very carefully how far our support goes and that it is not open-ended. Don't make promises you can't keep etc.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Which is why I said in my original post that you spell out very carefully how far our support goes and that it is not open-ended. Don't make promises you can't keep etc.
It doesn't matter what you say, you can't deal with people (particularly those in the area we're talking about) that way. People are going to try to gain as much power over as large an area as they can, and if you're not with them you're against them.

War can't be treated like a business.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, the absolute best choice of all is to not get involved until you can get the majority of the world onboard for a multilateral invasion.  If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention, that's the best case scenario -- because then you have the latitude to do whatever is necessary to win.

Basically, the idea is...  be isolationist until the world begs for help.  They appreciate the help much more then.
"If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention..."

Unacceptable. If you're wait until all the bureaucracies are lined up you have waited too long. You wait as long as your country's bureaucracy needs to get its head out of its ass and then you exercise as much influence over the situation to your favor as possible. This notion of stick next to every other nation in the name of global unity is pointless, because it implies what other nations think about your country is meaningful. It's not. Do what is right by your country and your morals, not what everyone else says is right.

Be isolationist, period. There is no reason to bend to their will just because they are desperate for it. If you weren't going to do it before you shouldn't do it now. If you were going to do it before and you were waiting for them to beg, that's irresponsible and frankly reprehensible. If something needs to be done you should have done it.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Which is why I said in my original post that you spell out very carefully how far our support goes and that it is not open-ended. Don't make promises you can't keep etc.
It doesn't matter what you say, you can't deal with people (particularly those in the area we're talking about) that way. People are going to try to gain as much power over as large an area as they can, and if you're not with them you're against them.

War can't be treated like a business.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, the absolute best choice of all is to not get involved until you can get the majority of the world onboard for a multilateral invasion.  If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention, that's the best case scenario -- because then you have the latitude to do whatever is necessary to win.

Basically, the idea is...  be isolationist until the world begs for help.  They appreciate the help much more then.
"If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention..."

Unacceptable. If you're wait until all the bureaucracies are lined up you have waited too long. You wait as long as your country's bureaucracy needs to get its head out of its ass and then you exercise as much influence over the situation to your favor as possible. This notion of stick next to every other nation in the name of global unity is pointless, because it implies what other nations think about your country is meaningful. It's not. Do what is right by your country and your morals, not what everyone else says is right.

Be isolationist, period. There is no reason to bend to their will just because they are desperate for it. If you weren't going to do it before you shouldn't do it now. If you were going to do it before and you were waiting for them to beg, that's irresponsible and frankly reprehensible. If something needs to be done you should have done it.
So you are agreeing with me that isolationism is the best policy? The only way we differ then is that I'm not above using proxies. Yes, doing it yourself will mean it's done right but it's not always beneficial to do so.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Which is why I said in my original post that you spell out very carefully how far our support goes and that it is not open-ended. Don't make promises you can't keep etc.
It doesn't matter what you say, you can't deal with people (particularly those in the area we're talking about) that way. People are going to try to gain as much power over as large an area as they can, and if you're not with them you're against them.

War can't be treated like a business.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, the absolute best choice of all is to not get involved until you can get the majority of the world onboard for a multilateral invasion.  If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention, that's the best case scenario -- because then you have the latitude to do whatever is necessary to win.

Basically, the idea is...  be isolationist until the world begs for help.  They appreciate the help much more then.
"If you wait until things get so bad that very few countries can logically question your intervention..."

Unacceptable. If you're wait until all the bureaucracies are lined up you have waited too long. You wait as long as your country's bureaucracy needs to get its head out of its ass and then you exercise as much influence over the situation to your favor as possible. This notion of stick next to every other nation in the name of global unity is pointless, because it implies what other nations think about your country is meaningful. It's not. Do what is right by your country and your morals, not what everyone else says is right.

Be isolationist, period. There is no reason to bend to their will just because they are desperate for it. If you weren't going to do it before you shouldn't do it now. If you were going to do it before and you were waiting for them to beg, that's irresponsible and frankly reprehensible. If something needs to be done you should have done it.
So you are agreeing with me that isolationism is the best policy? The only way we differ then is that I'm not above using proxies. Yes, doing it yourself will mean it's done right but it's not always beneficial to do so.
Proxy wars have no place in an isolationist policy. If you can't be bothered to fight the fight yourself then you don't need to be fighting it at all.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Proxy wars have no place in an isolationist policy. If you can't be bothered to fight the fight yourself then you don't need to be fighting it at all.
They have their place if for no other reason than fostering stability at home.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Proxy wars have no place in an isolationist policy. If you can't be bothered to fight the fight yourself then you don't need to be fighting it at all.
They have their place if for no other reason than fostering stability at home.
When have they ever managed to do that?

Proxy wars are never used in an isolationist policy. They are used when an interventionist wants to get in the middle of things, but can't justify actually putting significant numbers of armed troops on the ground (presumably because there is no valid justification).
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Proxy wars have no place in an isolationist policy. If you can't be bothered to fight the fight yourself then you don't need to be fighting it at all.
They have their place if for no other reason than fostering stability at home.
When have they ever managed to do that?

Proxy wars are never used in an isolationist policy. They are used when an interventionist wants to get in the middle of things, but can't justify actually putting significant numbers of armed troops on the ground (presumably because there is no valid justification).
So how would you handle the situation in Yemen?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
John, I need to know what you consider a proxy war plz.  We share intel with the Brits, which like Yemen is an ally.

I hate to say this, but isn't the proxy war crap in the ME the reason why OBL says he had a flew planes into NYC?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Pug wrote:

John, I need to know what you consider a proxy war plz.  We share intel with the Brits, which like Yemen is an ally.

I hate to say this, but isn't the proxy war crap in the ME the reason why OBL says he had a flew planes into NYC?
Proxy war would be like what we did with the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s. We didn't like the Iranians and the Iraqis were the lesser of two evils so we funded them in the war. Another example would be the way that we funded the British during WWI and WWII before we were attacked and declared war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard