Gentlefolk,

As this conflict is not a conventional conflict, the weapons and techniques employed are also unlikely to be the customary ones.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Why would this not surprise me in the least??

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
*******************
My Stories:
Dream Date
Just Desserts
Internet Lovers Meet - Part 1
Internet Lovers Meet - Part 2
Internet Lovers Meet - Part 3
RAVISHED!!
My Birthday - A Fantasy

The whole problem with the war on terror is that a yutz is in charge! Granted I am no Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, or Napolean when it comes to strategy--but Bush and his advisors are militarily incompetant.--first hand view of that simple fact.

In Afganistan it would have been better to employ hammer & anvil tactics to effect a battle of annihalation. What Bush did was assign special forces with the Northern Alliance to drive from East to West allowing the terrorest to escape into Pakistan/Iran. Better to have used airborne and special forces to cut off the terrorest retreat and have the regular army work with the Northern Alliance and drive the terrorest into a killing zone. A lot fewer of these vermin would be alive today.

And who knows about Irqac--it was a mess before--during--and after the first shots where fired. We have no real European allies on board--bleeding our budget white paying for it and loosing the flower of our youth in a protracted conflict.
--Bush and his little Napoleans disbanded the Irqac army upon the collapse of Saddam. And just now are reconstituting their army. Brilliant move--not! There where 100,000 troops--now what are they at perhaps 25,000?

I hate to say it but to win this war on terror--we the USA has to be more ruthless and creative then the terrorest. But with politics and war is like oil and water--they never could mix--and never will. It will be a long long conflict till someone realizes that this has to be a total war.

What is the difference between a christian fundamentalist and a muslim one??? A beard and turbin? A illfitting blue suite and elvis style haircut? They all seem to be two sides of the same coin. The war on terror is like the war on poverty and the war on drugs,in the end nothing much will improve but we'll all realize we are a lot less free'r then we were a few years ago. November is time for a regime change.Vote 'em all out and try 'em for war crimes and make the punishment fit the crime.

__________________
Sex is one of nine reasons for reincarnation.The other eight are unimportant...Henry Miller

Gentlefolk,

Afghanistan was ruled by a regime which hosted al-Qaeda. Now it is scheduled for the first democracy in more than a decade – and some consider that a failure?

I was under the impression that the intent of regime change is to effect a change in official policy in the target state, not the extermination of vermin. If that is how we should consider American adversaries, is anyone suggesting we should be celebrating the Abu Ghraib prison activities rather than condemning them?

This transition was performed by Afghan fighters - and there are those who propose that US troops should have been used. The transition in Iraq was performed by US troops – and yet some criticize the demobilization of Saddam Hussein’s army. Fascinating contrast.

The Poles, Italians and Danes serving in Iraq – among others - will be disappointed to learn that they are not “real” Europeans. I trust the title “European” will be extended as a courtesy to the English soldiers.

Oh please; “loosing the flower of our youth”? If the reference was to the English casualties in, say, 1916 – 1917, then there would be some facts to support the claim. In the period during which you refer to the loss of 1,000+ Americans, the population of my home state of Maryland increased by more than 1,000 souls.

The War on Terrorism will NEVER end until people understand that it is not the same as conventional wars fought between national armies in the past. Al-Qaeda is an international organization without territorial boundaries, and is not bound by the Geneva Conventions, as are civilized nations.

I will agree that there is a danger in laying too much emphasis on al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden alone. There is no doubt that the core of al-Qaeda has been disrupted. It has lost its sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan and is finding it harder to organize and fund its operations. As has been repeated too often, al-Qaeda veterans have been hit hard over the past three years.

But body counts are not necessarily the most useful way of judging progress because al-Qaeda is not a "normal" military entity and this war IS NOT a "normal" military struggle. For example, the group who carried out the Madrid bombing in March 2004 were not people who had been selected, trained or carrying out direct orders from Osama Bin Laden in the way the 9/11 hijackers had. None of them had been, I believe, to Afghanistan.

The more dispersed the foe is - the more it relies on local cells rather than people traveling into a country as happened in the US in 2001 - the harder it becomes to counter the threat because these independent actors may be harder to identify by national police forces. Scarecrow’s & Lilith’s posts pose real policy questions, as getting rid of one cell does not end the problem, nor kathy1, would capturing Bin Laden end the conflict, IMHO.

It seems to me that the conflict in Chechnya was a “war of liberation” (not unlike one waged in North America some 230-odd years ago) until President Putin found it convenient to cast the violence as being fostered by al-Qaeda.

PantyFanatic, in re truth in times of war: in 1918 Senator Hiram Johnson is supposed to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. I have, however, been unable to find where this is recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby wrote: "When war is declared, truth is the first casualty". (Falsehood in Wartime) Samuel Johnson seems to have again had the first word: “Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.”

As for “war crimes” and “make the punishment fit the crime”, well that is more appropriate for Gilbert and Sullivan ditties than the real world.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Gentleman/jseal,

Your ginormous words have not yet settled our debate as to how you have been permitted to override the Geneva Convention with this debate.

Your gentle nation somehow managed to override international concern and has continued to fight a "war on terror" based on weak evidence.

Your gentle nation continues to tell other countries why they are wrong, why the Geneva Convention is wrong . . .

The Purple Hearts were deserved.

Osama is not captured.

The economy is in the shitter.


Gentlefolk all.

Steph,

My words seldom settle any debate, ask anyone in my family.

What parts of the Geneva Convention are you referring to? If you are referring to The Fourth Geneva Convention, dated August 12, 1949, which addresses the protection of civilians in time of war, in what ways has it been overridden? It is a lengthy document, in excess of 22,000 words. I’m unsure of the particulars of your concern.

Evidence – facts – can be difficult to agree upon. That being said, when you assert the evidence is weak, and by implication, insufficient to substantiate the War on Terrorism, I feel that the following list, incomplete though it may be, and even containing errors (although I think it is accurate) does provide a plausible basis for the War on Terrorism. It goes back a bit, so I ask you to be patient with me.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it killed 63 people. Six months later a truck carrying about 2,500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait. The following year, in September, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. In August of that year a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, and 22 are killed. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

Terrorists bombed TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the more well known bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

In February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1,000 are injured.

In November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. In June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

There were simultaneous attacks on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They kill 224.

In October 2000, a small craft pulled along side the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, exploded and killed 17 sailors. Attacking a US Navy vessel is an act of war.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001.

These are terrorist acts against American interests. If necessary, other lists could be compiled to include similar acts against other nations.

In re differences of government policy as to the most appropriate way of addressing this threat, while the US failed to persuade France and Germany to participate in the overthrow of the Hussein dictatorship, it is inaccurate to suggest that “other countries” are not participating in the War on Terrorism.

I suspect that most of the Purple Hearts awarded are deserved.

As I suggested in my previous post, the capture of Osama bin Laden should not be the primary focus of the War on Terrorism. The nature of this conflict is not one which will be resolved by the incarceration of a figurehead.

“The economy” is an expansive reference. Are you referring to that of your nation? Mine? That of England, France, or Germany? The world’s? “In the shitter”? As the world economy is larger now than it was when the War on Terrorism was pronounced, perhaps some details are in order.

__________________
Eudaimonia

With only a little punctuation adjustment, I believe you may have hit on something, oh garrulous one.

….. “ The world’s in the shitter!” ….

__________________

Ok, Steph. Back to you!!! LMAO

I'll just sit here jiggling these to keep people entertained until your back

Politicians are so full of shit.

__________________
horny guy

Jseal, just one little add on to what you have stated above. France, Germany and Russia are helping with the war on terror in Afganistan, they just refused to fight against Iraq because of the econmical lost to them because of deals to trade guns for oil with Hussien.

Just my two cents

__________________

Those "LLFBTs" have kicked our ass significantly (9/11). I believe you all underestimate their resolve and wit. What is scary to me is that our population can be so manipulated by newsbites that it can a) elect Bush and 2) and much worse probably reelect Bush.

He is a powermonger. Ask yourself if we are at war, why has he visited Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida over 100 times in the last year? Sounds like he is really working hard at hording his power and not leading a war.

My perspective on that really - it gives him less time to fuck more things up.

Have no doubt, BinLaden wants Bush as president. He plays Bush like a concert pianist.

Interestingly enough I was in the company of the 4th ID and their General Thurman (the gents responsible for capturing Sadam) last evening. The General eluded to the same things I have seen here - this is like no war we have ever been in before, and it won't be won anytime soon. It's a war the US Army is determined to win, but won't win overnight. It's about plotting and patience. Afterall those are the tactics used by the enemy. He reminded us all that their job is defend our Constitution and the freedoms it represents. Our freedoms were threatened three years ago and continue to be each day.

I'm saying the US is being rather heavy handed and should concentrate on the economy.

When people say things like, "And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001" it makes me not want to even enter a debate with them. Rather condescending or patronizing by the looks of it.

OK, you read those 22,000 words and let me know why America gets special consideration.

Let's not forget the CIA trained Osama to fight the Russians. Should actions like this not be considered? The foreign policy of America is rather paternal and I think this should be addressed before anyone goes near the Geneva Convention.

Canada is there too...