As of Jan 2nd the war on terrorism isn't going very well for the US. Now before anyone jumps, read the rest of this. The war on terrorism has a broad two-pronged approach attacking the terrorist groups themselves and the governments that support them. Well in Afghanistan we have completed Objective B, the Taliban is out of power, and with means of large aid will be complety dead within a few months. Al-qaeda and Bin Laden haven't been damaged much if at all. We have killed off most of OBL's security force guarding him, and destroyed the feeder network of traning camps inside Afghanistan. The problem is that the graduate terrorists are still out in the middle east and western nations, including the US. There are still dozens of traning camps around the world, probably four nations that support OBL (covertly now, like Iraq, possibly Iran, and others). There needs to be a massive world wide law enforcement crusade to remove all of the terrorist cells that have been deployed. Omar and the Taliban will soon be fully dissenigrated the Taliban. Bin Laden might be with Mullah Omar. After Afghanistan is done we must take immediate military action against every terrorist camp, hideout and physical remnants of the terrorist cells. Though the leadership of al-Qaeda is for the most part gone, we still have to get the cells. The cells have been pre-programed with terrorist plots that could continue for years, even if OBL is dead.
There are now rumblings of US support for those in Yemmin (?) who have been tooling up to kick out the Al-qaeda network. At this rate we'll be looking for folks to pay to pull our chestnuts out of the fire come next christmas.
"War" On Terrorism Is A Scam When the Department of Defense announced that the US is now going to begin arming and supplying the so-called "anti-Taliban factions" I had to laugh. This is the same policy that's gotten us into trouble before - arming today's "freedom fighters" who become tomorrow's "terrorists." That's how we created "Osama bin Laden" and now we're doing it again. We consistently do this under some vain hope that we can control these factions. It never happens. Virtually every faction we have ever armed in the days when they were the "freedom fighters," later turned around and fought us. The United States fails to appreciate the fact that this is an area with over two hundred factions, all of whom are hostile to each other, none of whom have been able to make an alliance stick for more than three minutes. We're now arming the same groups of people we had formerly declared to be "terrorists," those who had been fighting with Russia in Chechnya. But now they're our "friends," so we're going to arm them. Then when they become a problem (next week), we'll spend another billion dollars of American taxpayers' money to go after them -- after we've equipped them with our weapons. The agenda is to keep the whole "intelligence game" and the whole Military-Industrial Complex going. You arm today's "friends," knowing full well that they're going to be tomorrow's "enemies." So you're going to have to spend billions more in defense expenditures to go after the very same people the American taxpayers have already paid for. It's a never-ending cycle, but the general population in the US is under-educated in geography and history, so the sham works every time.
Well I think governing Afghanistan will undoubtly be a difficult undertaking. Impossible? No. There will be problems, plus the Afghanistan theater in the war isn't even close to be finished. We still have to destroy the remnants of the Taliban and completely route out Binny and al-Qaeda. I think this will be accomplished by spring easily, if not by mid-February. My only concern is that the active terrorists that have graduated from the terrorist camps are still walking the streets. I'm genunly concerned about those even more than OBL riding around in and ol' Toyota pick-up truck.
"It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war.... Since 1917 this peacefull nation has used armed forces in Mexico, Dalmatia, China, Honduras, China again, Panama, Greenland, Iceland, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, China again, Korea, Cuba , Thailand, Laos, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Iran, libya, Honduras again, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Libya again, Bolivia, Persian Gulf again, Libya once again, Philippines, Australia, Irag two or three times, Somalia, Bosnia, Somalia again, and Afghahistan... I feel sure I overlooked some countries and while many of these , we can say " we were just" in our use of force, many of these a peaceful means may have worked. Overall, my point is we ARE not a peaceful nation and the quickest to use force and we have used Atomic weapons and now we are talking about attacking countries because we think they might use them.
I have to ask why the HELL the US has a marine base in Australia. We are a soveren nation in no need of peace keeping and with our own Armed forces. SO WHY ARE YOU HERE
Asguard: I ask the same question. What I find even more annoying, is that Bush wants to install part of his anti-missile defence shield in Australia, and yep, you guessed it....Little Johnny has agreed to it. Of course it won't protect us in a nuclear war, just the U.S. goofyfish: you are totally correct. I've been trying to point that out on several other forums, but I was attacked as being "anti-American" and "pro-terrorist". justagirl: you are correct too. The U.S is in no way a peaceful nation. Io
Whhaaaahhhh! Quit cyring. The world you live in is a much safer place at the expense of the American soldier and taxpayer. We haven't gone to war, acutally invading and destroying an whole nation, just for fun. Justagirl, how convient you leave out Germany and Japan. We saved the world from these two enemies, but no one tends to remember that. P.S. We pay the Aussies for the lease on the naval base in Australia. You can kick us out anytime we do something naughty, until then its a nice place to keep track of China and the whole east of Asia.
shrugs I really don't know why I bother sometimes....you say I left out japan and germany...welll here is a copy and paste from my post...again, Panama, Greenland, Iceland, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, China again, Korea, Cuba , Thailand, ...I see them side by side not to mention the fact I said we used the Atomic bomb which since you don't know was on japan twice...
Au contrare. More people would have died if the A-bomb wasn't used, and there was either an invasion or blockade/bombardment strategy. Ketsu Go was the planned defense of the home islands of Japan by the Imperial Navy and Army. Poision gas and bio weapons would have almost been assuredly used in any event by both sides.
to be honest you are so closeminded you don't even see what I am saying.. I said we used the Atomic bomb and now we are going to attack countries because we think think they are going to use it...I didn't want or offer a debate on why we used it but made the observation we are going to attack countries that we think might use it and we are the only country in the world to use Atomic Bombs in war.. My second point is we are not peaceful and as you know I can't tell Mr Wilson.. But I offered proof that we have used are armed forces more than any other country in the world since he made that quote..Now it's moot if I think the war is wrong and it's moot if you think it is just...I made observations without touching that aspect of it..but for the record I oppose our war and now have made my own thread on it
it's called why we need woman in power all over the world and can be found in the war on terrosim section smiles
I don't agree with that. i think the leaders we have at the moment are fools (especially little Johny) but just because a leader is Male is not the reason we are at war. A lot of english queens went to war to. Its the quality of leader NOT their gender thats the problem (im sure their are US and other women who agree with the current policys) Now your anti-war thread please?
It's called "we need women in power all over the world" and can be found in the war on terrorist forum.. that's not my comment,, thats my entry
A specious argument that can never be proven, and may have been another example of our government spinning their way clear of a terrible action. Japan was, in fact, already trying to enter in peace negotiations. Diaries kept by many in the American government, including Truman himself, reveal this. There was only one condition on which the Japanese insisted -- they wanted to keep their Emperor; symbol of Japanese culture. The United States never even talked with the Japanese about surrender terms. American leaders demanded unconditional surrender. The fact that the Japanese were already trying to surrender when we dropped the bomb -- and that we ultimately gave them the terms we first refused -- makes the allegation that we would have had to invade Japan particularly ridiculous. The plain truth is that the nuclear weapons were used to scare Russia. In 1945,the United States disagreed with the Soviet Union with regard to Russia's actions in Europe. Our leaders felt that by showing the Russians we had a powerful weapon, we could get them to agree to our terms in Europe and Asia. As Secretary of War Stimson intimated in his diary, in diplomacy the bomb would be a "master card." There was? So why did we not avail ourselves of one of these options? We had a terrible weapon in our hands and the morality of its use should have demanded that it not be used unless we were in extremis. Were we? We had won the European war, were ahead of the game in men and material and our Russian ally was ready to enter the war against Japan. In 1945, allied bombers struck Japan mercilessly and received no resistance. If we were not in extremis, the only remaining rationales for use of the bomb were murderous vengeance, detached sadistic curiosity, or amoral politics, none of which are foundations upon which I would want to build our humanity. No disagreement there. But, as we did not have to invade, the argument that an all-out joint defense effort to be conducted by the entire strengths of the Japanese Army, Navy and Air Force would inflict severe casualties on U.S. forces is invalidated. Allied forces were fortunate that only when their homeland was threatened did the Japanese finally stress inter-service coordination and unity of command. Had this occurred earlier, the outcome of the war in the Pacific might have been different. Peace.
By The Way... A somewhat inappropriate comment from a moderator. Perhaps a well-thought and supported rebuttal rather than a schoolyard taunt? Just my opinion. Peace.
We shouldnt put people down just becuase we dont agree with each other. Disagreement is what makes this site so special. Groove on
