# Osama Asks for Truce - what is our response? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685 "2006-01-19T18:19:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/101 "2006-01-20T13:44:51Z")
> [@Gringo\_Miami](#): > > Kimstu - Please reread my posts. I would not have supported the initiation of the war on those grounds. Our original premise was WMD, which I went out of my way to mention. Bush and his “intelligence” community screwed that up royally. They convinced many that the WMD were real, and we needed to invade to stop Hussein from developing and using these weapons. I, like many others, went along with that. If you reread my OP in this thread, I mention that my support for this war waivered quite a bit. I had doubts once I found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction there (btw - I hate that phrase). One of the other reasons my support for this war became less enthusiastic, was that I believed it was diverting us from the fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in particular. > > It was only yesterday, when Bin Laden offered truce (and threatened more attacks) that I swung back the other way. If he is offering us a truce, we are on the right track. We are hurting him and his organization. > > Many in this thread have stated that OBL can probably NOT command a truce any more. I tend to agree. One of the possible reasons for that is that his troops are losing confidence in him. Yet another reason to believe we are doing the right things. > > On one level, this means that I am saying that Bush has unintentionally backed into a rationale for the war in Iraq. I have said in this thread, and other places, that I do NOT consider him to be very intelligent. Let me add that he is also a bit of a bumbler - and no, Cheney ain’t no genius either. Our fault really, all of us. We hired them. Twice. However, I can separate the war in Iraq from the intentions of our government enough to say that - were we there only for the WMD we should bring the troops home. Were we there to democratize the Middle East - we should bring the troops home. We are there now to engage Al Qaeda, and kill and capture as many of them as we can. This I am with 100%. you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The Al-Q franchise there is very small compared to the nationalist/sectarina opposition. And you are not factoring in the great training ground it is for terrorists, in the same way fighting the Russians in Afghanistan was. There is absolutley no use killing a few in Iraq if at the same time your actions breed more and more. ---
**Author:** ![Gringo\_Miami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f17d59/32.png) [@Gringo\_Miami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gringo_Miami)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/102 "2006-01-20T13:51:54Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The Al-Q franchise there is very small compared to the nationalist/sectarina opposition. And you are not factoring in the great training ground it is for terrorists, in the same way fighting the Russians in Afghanistan was. > > There is absolutley no use killing a few in Iraq if at the same time your actions breed more and more. Point taken. But are you implying that there is certain threshold that needs to be reached before justifying the war? Is this a typical Return On Investment analysis? If we kill more Al Qaeda a week than they recruit or train, the war is OK? Or do we count this up quarterly? BTW… I am well aware that there is also an indigenous insurgency. Aren’t they also engaging in suicide bombings and terrorism against others? If so, they are AQ wannabes and deserve the same fate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/103 "2006-01-20T13:53:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > My idea of honesty is guoting what people actually say. But not either defending or abandoning your own bullshit? 🙂 > [@](#): > > Neither of your links supports the quote you posted. Pouting does not become you, John. You know what Bush said is what he meant - that he isn’t trying to apprehend Osama at all. That’s the fucking point, not that it’s “bad for the Democrats”. If you’d rather go away in a huff rather than discuss the actual topic here, you’re welcome to do so - and we’ll all know it, too. Ever wonder why nobody mistakes you for a Democrat, btw? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/104 "2006-01-20T14:02:34Z")
> [@Gringo\_Miami](#): > > Point taken. But are you implying that there is certain threshold that needs to be reached before justifying the war? Is this a typical Return On Investment analysis? If we kill more Al Qaeda a week than they recruit or train, the war is OK? Or do we count this up quarterly? > > BTW… I am well aware that there is also an indigenous insurgency. Aren’t they also engaging in suicide bombings and terrorism against others? If so, they are AQ wannabes and deserve the same fate. No - just arguing that the argument is unsound on its own terms. The illegal invasion or Iraq was a big gift to terrorists. They wanted us to go in there just as they are gagging for us to attack Iran. A legally sanctioned invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, with a competent international reconstruction effort that left Iraqi’s to decide what sort of govt they want without handing out contracts etc to Bush’s mates would have been fine by me. And I bet, most Iraqi’s too. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/105 "2006-01-20T14:14:46Z")
Reese: “Listen and understand! That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with, it can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop ever, until you are dead.” Osama offers his truce from his perspective as an arab, I have heard. I have heard that it is legitimate in his culture. Possibly a holdover from raiding. The thing is, we havn’t held to that since Grant and the era of Total War. While understanding other cultures is important, it does not mean that we have to bow to their needs. Our culture of war never ends. As long as he lives, he is a target, until he is dead. And that’s how we do things. Why would we change it? ---
**Author:** ![Gringo\_Miami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f17d59/32.png) [@Gringo\_Miami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gringo_Miami)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/106 "2006-01-20T14:19:22Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > A legally sanctioned invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam… This is certainly a minor hijack of my own thread… but… there is no such thing as a “legally sanctioned” invasion of anyone, anytime. There is no international body that says it is legal to invade - not the UN, not the Hague, not the ISO or the Boy Scouts of America. What might happen, its that other governments agree that the action in question is justified (very different than legal). And a coalition is formed. And friendly governments, called allies usually, support the action with troops, or supplies, or moral support even. But, sometimes, governments can take military action without this kind of support. The addition or lack of support doesn’t make the action justified, or legal all by itself. Just popular or not. You need to make your own decision as to whether is it justified. Forget legal. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/107 "2006-01-20T14:27:28Z")
> [@Gringo\_Miami](#): > > This is certainly a minor hijack of my own thread… but… there is no such thing as a “legally sanctioned” invasion of anyone, anytime. There is no international body that says it is legal to invade - not the UN, not the Hague, not the ISO or the Boy Scouts of America. > > What might happen, its that other governments agree that the action in question is justified (very different than legal). And a coalition is formed. And friendly governments, called allies usually, support the action with troops, or supplies, or moral support even. But, sometimes, governments can take military action without this kind of support. The addition or lack of support doesn’t make the action justified, or legal all by itself. Just popular or not. You need to make your own decision as to whether is it justified. Forget legal. Maybe legal was the wrong word. But I consider GW1 ‘legal’. Internationally sanctioned. And to reiterate, competent. Which this debacle is the very, absolute, polar opposite of. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/108 "2006-01-20T15:42:27Z")
I think we should reduce our posted reward for his death or capture to $20mil., and make it clear that we anticipate further reductions in various, irregular increments at irregular intervals over time. Just as Al-Qaeda releases video and audio-recordings periodically, we should be periodically reviewing the various bounties we have on these guys – partly to save money\*, partly to insult\*\* them and mess with their heads, and perhaps mostly to keep the bounty temptation in the Arab press and on people’s minds, with the subtle pressure, for those tempted to turn fink, to act now rather than later. - For that matter, do we really want $25 million to go to some a@@hole who’s been close enough to Osama to turn him in? We shouldn’t be so frickin’ generous with these types. \*\*or, as Bette Midler put it in **Ruthless People** , when she learned of her husband’s successful efforts to lessen her ransom, “I’ve been _marked down_? _Me_?!? Marked _DOWN_???..” ---
**Author:** ![Gringo\_Miami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f17d59/32.png) [@Gringo\_Miami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gringo_Miami)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/109 "2006-01-20T16:06:54Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Maybe legal was the wrong word. But I consider GW1 ‘legal’. Internationally sanctioned. And to reiterate, competent. Which this debacle is the very, absolute, polar opposite of. Sorry… doesn’t work for me. In GW1 - the UK came with us. They did again this time. That obviously doesn’t meet your threshold. If I recall correctly, China didn’t come with us either time - so that was not important either. France - France “came with us” the first time, and not the second… is it France? Germany? Do you count by number of countries sanctioning? or does population count? I am not being sarcastic - I truly think your logic is seriously flawed. It makes NO difference which nations support the military action and which don’t. We should not be making decisions based on the popularity of the action with others. It is nice when others support us, but it is NOT part of the consideration to act or not (except insofar as military tactics are impacted). We did NOT take a poll of nations after Pearl Harbor, we declared war in 24 hours. When we did so, France had already been occupied, Britain was on her knees. There was not a hell of a lot of point in worrying about international support. It was time to go to war, and perfectly justified. After 9/11, the same logic applies insofar as justification. We decide what we are to do, we hope others see our reasoning. And we are held accountable for our actions in the global community as well as domestically. Meantime, make your own decision about it. Don’t wait for others to tell you what is right and what is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/110 "2006-01-20T16:23:31Z")
> [@Gringo\_Miami](#): > > We did NOT take a poll of nations after Pearl Harbor, we declared war in 24 hours. When we did so, France had already been occupied, Britain was on her knees. There was not a hell of a lot of point in worrying about international support. It was time to go to war, and perfectly justified. > > After 9/11, the same logic applies insofar as justification. We decide what we are to do, we hope others see our reasoning. And we are held accountable for our actions in the global community as well as domestically. The problem with this analogy is that Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. Now, if we had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia, on the other hand… ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/111 "2006-01-20T16:39:14Z")
> [@Gringo\_Miami](#): > > Sorry… doesn’t work for me. In GW1 - the UK came with us. They did again this time. That obviously doesn’t meet your threshold. If I recall correctly, China didn’t come with us either time - so that was not important either. > France - France “came with us” the first time, and not the second… is it France? > Germany? Do you count by number of countries sanctioning? or does population count? > > I am not being sarcastic - I truly think your logic is seriously flawed. It makes NO difference which nations support the military action and which don’t. We should not be making decisions based on the popularity of the action with others. It is nice when others support us, but it is NOT part of the consideration to act or not (except insofar as military tactics are impacted). We did NOT take a poll of nations after Pearl Harbor, we declared war in 24 hours. When we did so, France had already been occupied, Britain was on her knees. There was not a hell of a lot of point in worrying about international support. It was time to go to war, and perfectly justified. > > After 9/11, the same logic applies insofar as justification. We decide what we are to do, we hope others see our reasoning. And we are held accountable for our actions in the global community as well as domestically. > > Meantime, make your own decision about it. Don’t wait for others to tell you what is right and what is wrong. Cite for Pakistan or Iraq being involved in 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Gringo\_Miami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f17d59/32.png) [@Gringo\_Miami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gringo_Miami)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685/112 "2006-01-20T16:51:09Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Cite for Pakistan or Iraq being involved in 9/11. Ain’t none. Sorry for not spelling out every detail of my arguement. The point was about legally sanctioned/popular/etc invasions. You need to address my point. What I probably should have said in the 9/11 - Pearl Harbor thing was that after 9/11 we invaded AFGANISTAN. We went there, because we were in pursuit of the organizers of 9/11. As far as I know we still are (GWB’s bumbling statements notwithstanding - he as said contradictory things on this). The invasion of Iraq was based on the WMD thing, which I reflected upon several times in this thread. I keep answering your questions Tagos - please answer mine - which countries do you require approval from before you order military action, and what do you base that list on? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-asks-for-truce-what-is-our-response/340685.md?page=5)