No there isn’t and no it isn’t.
Ooh, this is fun. If a little unproductive.
I’ve outlined my ‘grand strategy’ elsewhere. Number 1 tactic being, not making things worse with your blind, stupid, blood-lust. And as usual I don’t give a damn what peekaboo games with the reality of the situation you want to play. Hide behind definitions all you want. The reality is the US murdered, by deliberate action, a whole bunch of innocent people in an allied country on the off-chance of killing a few people whose deaths won’t make a blind bit of difference to defeating terrorists.
Yea - killing innocents in a part of the world famed for bitter, long-lasting, blood-feuds -that’s bound to lessen the chance of future terrorism, that’s bound not to drive them into the arms of ‘the enemy of my enemy’.
Doing nothing is always the better option to doing something stupid and counter-productive, particularly when innocent civilians are involved. Doing something counter-productive that kills innocent people or supporting it is the act of a moral barbarian.
Gee, what a kooky co-ink-e-dink that not long after successfully targeting and killing several top men of Al-Qaeda in what they figured was an untouchable safe-haven across the Pakistani border, none other than Osama fucking Bin Laden himself puts out a feeler for “a truce”.
What ever could have possibly motivated him to do that…
Gee - address my points rather than repeat facile talking points. Do you seriously think that killing a couple of guilty people among a whole bunch of innocent ones, in circumstances that can only feed the well-spring of hatred and spark blood-feuds against americans as a whole is acceptable?
(Okay, I know that was a rhetorical question).
And if Cuba does it in Miami? Your family killed cos the guy upstairs has some unsavoury buddies over for a meal with his family? No - I’m sure that will be somehow ‘different’. It always is.
OBL claimed the WTC was a legitimate war target because there were cia offices there and the civilians were directly helping an oppressive and immoral system waging war on islam.
He gets no slack from me but apparently he does from you and your ilk.
Seriously - I don’t think the ilkers care about defeating the threat of fundamentalist islamic terrorism.
They don’t care about draining the sea they swim in, negating the hatred that nourishes and renews the branches. All they care about is killing people. If they cared otherwise they wouldn’t support lunatic actions like this, invading and bombing third parties.
If you are harboring and inviting AQ to use your home as a meeting place, you are no longer innocent.
No, that’s not right. Besides caring about killing people, I also care about looting their resources and raping their goats. And I expect you’re not really interested in a debate when you insist on attributing the worst of traits on those you disagree with.
I don´t know, since the tape was recorded before the attacks:
Al-Jazeera said the tape was recorded in the Islamic month that corresponds with December.
Where? Saying what you *won’t * do isn’t a plan.
It’s a better damn plan than ‘doing shit that just makes things worse and leaves kids brains splattered all over the landscape’.
All I’m asking for is a link to the ‘grand strategy’ you claim to have elsewhere.
It was in a thread a few weeks ago on a tangental subject.
It featured all sorts of unreasonable stuff like stopping doing shit like this, adopting an ethical foreign policy that shuns dictators instead of arming them, not undermining other democracies, torturing people etc.
In short, living up to our professed values while treating the problem of terrorists as an international police problem not a bullshit Orwellian neverending war. Adopt an even-handed approach to the Palestinian problem. We do unto others as we would like them to do unto us.
We cut terrorists off from sympathisers not help connect them, we stop trying to impose trade agreements on the under-developed world while stuffing our farmer’s mouths with gold.
We apologise for Iraq, tear up all the handout-agreements for our mates and let the Iraqi’s run their own economy their way. We get out ASAP, No ‘enduring bases,’ nothing. We live up to our obligations under the NPT before expecting Iran to hold to it.
We figure out what pisses people off and as far as possible, stop.
We stop bloody acting like we’re the new Roman Empire.
So long as we act as if we can do whatever shit we like to the rest of the world there will be consequences as surely as night follows day.
I’d also go all out for alternative energy so we can wash our hands of the Middle East.
This is not a terrorist movement with a head we can cut off. We could kill OBL and all his associates and still other groups will spring up. Like the London bombers motivated to act by Iraq.
We can’t ‘win’ this bullshit war by force, we can only do it by isolating the terrorists from sympathy - like the UK dealt with the IRA.
Politics to recognise and deal with legitimate grievances and if necessary, well-informed targeted military action. We didn’t invade the Republic (or to keep the analogy straight, Boston) or ‘precision’ bomb housing estates or cart ‘suspects’ off for torture. Internment was recognised as a mistake, just created more martyrs and sympathisers.
Even if my plan was, ‘do F all’ it would be better than Bush’s.
precision strike: I want to kill Habib. I precisely strike Habib. Not Habib and neigbors and friends.
btw:would you be good enough to provide an operational definition of “losing” this war.
hey, that goat came on to me…
Interesting. Does this magic system actually exist outside of your head? Does the US have such a system that can kill Habib but not touch anyone else? Is the US not using it because we enjoy killing or is said system not ready for prime time (or getting back to my earlier point…is it simply a fever dream cooked up by yourself)? Should we wait until such a system is in place before doing anything…and does that apply to the past as well? Should we have not bombed German cities because all we could do when trying to kill Habib was take out a few square miles close to where Habib might be?
-XT
We really will have a hard time deconstructing these issues if you insist on conflating a “struggle” against a disparate collection of criminals with a world war.
To pose the same question I asked Stone, if this is a “world war” please describe the conditions in which we would find the US after “losing”
Compare and contrast Poland, 1940, if you would be so kind.
Not at all…all you have to do is answer a few questions. Is AQ a viable military target? Are they a threat to the US? Er…well, considering who I’m asking let me rephrase that: Does the majority of the citizens of the US THINK that AQ personnel are viable military targets? Does the majority of US citizens THINK that AQ is a threat to the US.
If the answer to those questions is ‘no’ then you are right…we have no business targetting them at all and should just leave them be. If the answer however is ‘yes’ then we should use the best technology available to us to attack them when we can. Obviously we should TRY our best to keep civilian casualties to a minimum…and I believe we did try. We don’t have a magic missile that will only kill Habib when he’s sitting down to dinner with a bunch of civilian men, women and children. It would be nice and maybe someday we will have it…but today all we can do is hit the house Habib is in without destroying the entire neighborhood. If Habib is considered an important enough target, if his death will cause a serious blow to the enemy organization, then its certainly valid for the US to go after him…even if there is a possibility innocent civilians might be hurt or killed. Its called war.
Yeah, I know it sounds callous, and I know you guys will spin that so that I am a heartless monster (thats ok, I’m sure you can guess what I think of the converse position 
), but its reality. So, to me the real debate is in the questions I asked…does the citizens and the government of the US think that the target was a valid military target? Do the citizens and the goverment think that there is a serious threat from the targets organization to the US, and does the military and the government believe that taking this individual out will both help the US and hurt the opposition?
Its not a ‘world war’ for one thing…but it IS a war. Speculating on the worst case however, I’d say that the US ‘losing’ would entail several ME nations being toppled, with Taliban style theocracies taking their place. In addition spreading terrorism in Europe would be a ‘lose’ for the US…especially if it managed to further neutralize them and further alienate them from us. Finally, a ‘lose’ would mean escallating violence both here in the US and against US interests world wide.
So yeah…it could be pretty serious. Let me ask you something there Mr. Goth…what do YOU think it is if its not a war? What should the US’s response be to international terrorism in the form of AQ? How seriously should we take it when they have (in essence) declared war on us?
Er…why would I do that? Is WWII the same as the Vietnam conflict? The war of 1812? I was pointing out the use of weapons in history and using a conflict nearly everyone is familiar with. I could use the bombing campaign in Vietnam just as well with reguards to the point I was making…which was we use the weapons we have to the best of our ability. We are constantly trying to make them better, more accurate, doing less colateral damage. AQ and its personnel are viable military targets to the US (if you don’t agree with that then there really is no basis for debate).
-XT
I will pitch in to the broader issues when I have more time, but we fundamentally disagree on the application of military force to this problem, not only because of the assymetrical paradigms but more importantly because it is such a blunt instrument that it is doomed to adversely impact the very aims it seeks to advance.
Moreover, whether the most unsophisticated and ahistorical populace in the developed world understands that al-q, dispersed and disparate, is not a legitimate “military target” is irrelevant to the analysis of our true interests and our true path to their vindication.
Now there’s an idea. Don’t spread it around too much, perhaps you and I could go halves in the start-up capital and see where it goes. A weapon, simple to use and cheap to operate that: kills one person at a time. Scoff you may, but who knows, it could catch on!
I’m not alaricthegoth, but here’s what I think.
1 : A political prop for the Bush Admin.
2 : An excuse to attack Iraq, build bases, control the oil, and loot it / hand out goodies to Bush’s buddies.
3 : A religious conflict between American fundies and foreign fundies.
4 : A chance to kill foreigners for entertainment. A lot of Americans love that; especially the sort who support Bush.
They’re just a bunch of criminals with religious overtones. Treat them like that.
Not very. They don’t have the power to do serious damage; we’ve already done far more damage to ourselves than they ever could.
rotflmao