[frankclone]

Unfortunately, the "truth" (not upper-case "Truth(s)"that a society lives by) is in "realpolitik", the objective, dispassionate study of power, economics, geopolitics a la Machiavelli & von Clausewitz.
I say "unfortunately" because I esteem our society's "self-evident Truths" ( or if you prefer, fundamental beliefs, guiding principles, core values) such as democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, justice, individualism, rationality, progress.
Yet, I do believe there is a gap between theory & practice. We (the western democracies) are great when it comes to war (wiped out fascism & Communism is fading away, albeit via a "cold war") but what about in-between-wars? A lot of scheming is done & decisions made in backrooms, there are "spin doctors", there are ulterior motives & short-term strategies; the general populace is often uninformed &/or apathetic & has a tendency to forget history & oversimplify complex issues.
The perverse terrorist bastards should pay for their crimes & should be rooted out like a cancer--but afterwards, I hope to see a real concerted effort on all levels--individual, local, organizational, national, & international--to prevent the Next Bad Thing (& given NBC[Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical], it could be the Last Bad Thing)

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Turning your back on a situation doesn't mean it will correct itself. Take Afghanistan for example. Globalization and spheres of influence mean allies and markets. The Russians decide they want Afghanistan, we help the Afghanis kick them out, then we forget about them. Voila. WWII, we stay out until we're attacked. If we'd waited a year, London would have fallen (or if Hitler wasn't dumb enough to start Barbarossa). Some of the world's problems are just that: everybody's problems. Terrorism has now made the list.

Read my staement above.I say that internal conflicts should be avoided but once borders are crossed there can be the right to intrude.You never see a country that has grand designs attacking another nation of equal strength,only weaker nations and therefore deserve help fighting off the agressor nation.

Quote:

Russians decide they want Afghanistan, we help the Afghanis kick them out, then we forget about them

They did not/do not want our presence there.You would have the US do what ? Occupy a sovereign nation ? Isn't that exactly what seems to have ole BinLadins panties in a bunch ?Our presence in the "Holy Land" ?
And again.It is not our responsibility.These people are rsponsible for thier own future.We helped them against the Soviets,they had a chance to become a better nation,a new start.It is not the problem of the united states that they turned it to **** and set up a government every bit as oppressive as the one we aided in getting rid of.They made the choice .Not our businesss.

Funny thing.Even after all the bad blood and bombing,our pres,our commander in chief who is sincerely pissed,is still offering to extend the olive branch if the identified terrorists are turned over.This would END.But in thier infinate wisdom they will not.They say that not only is Bin Laden thier guest but that he aided Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and provided money for arms.
OH REALLY ******** ? So I guess I imagined the aid the US gave.You can not deal with people like this because they only understand an issue with total tunnel vision.Weed them out,cut them off at the roots,and let us see if the Afghani people can get it right this time.Time is running out.

And to put things in perspective,there are stirrings of anti-war movements by some of our confused citizens,but it is thier choice and at least in our nation they have the right to be heard no matter how wrong the majority may think they are.Try that in any of the countries under discussion and you will have not a few folks running around shortened by a head.The only protesting allowed in those nations is state sanctioned protests,which is not a protest at all but more propaganda.

 

[huy_ha]

Rick, I agree with you that they determined their own government after the Soviets left. As far as I know, though, the Taliban was not really recognized as a government by the international community. More like a wait and see what happens kind of thing. I'm not saying we should have had a heavy hand in determining the government, just that the problems in individual states often influences more than just that one state. Thus, the coalitions we make through the long arm of diplomacy.

 

[rickcr42]

what continues to amaze me is how often a nation will go through a revolution only to set up a government as bad as or worse than the one ousted.
And in the case of Afghanistan,there is no need for outside nations to recognize a government if in fact the citizens of that nation heed that government as the rulers of that nation.
While I am not comfortable doing this (I live in the real world,the world as it is not how I would like it to be) let me propose a hypothetical :
Say we lingered after the Soviets left in an attempt to insure free and fair elections.First of all,it would only be by force of arms that we would be able to impose such on the population,and that would bring another set of problems.Sovereign nations do not like to be told what to do,even when it is in their best interest.It breeds resentment.Our fighting men would become targets , and if casualties , there would be retaliation by us.Now you would have a small group of pissed off fanatics having something they could use to recruit,rightly or wrongly,a small army with the united states as the target.
Our choice would then be cut and run or hunker down and fight,again creating more enemies.It is a vicious cycle and until certain people choose to act in a civilized manner,join the human race in a march forward,there is nothing we can do other than step away.Let them work things out and if they don't,then the planet will not weep for their passing,good riddance.
These petty tyrants want nothing more than to secure power.And if that means using ancient history or imagined insults to obtain followers,so be it.
Time these ******** get on with rebuilding rather than tearing down,but anyone can destroy,takes a certain type to build,and that type needs to be the one with followers.Then there would be no need for our or anyone elses interference

 

[rickcr42]

Hey frankclone,I remember my NBC training and it was some scary ****.
Basically the "N",nuclear training amounted to no more than "you see the flash,close your eyes,lay on your rifle face down and put your hands down by your balls so they don't get burnt too badly.When the shockwave passes get up and kick the hell out of the enemy because they are coming behind the blast.You can still be an effective fighting force up until the point when your teeth and hair fall out and you start pucking .Comes down to kiss your ass goodbye but while your at it,take some of the bastards with you.
The "B" and "C"-a syringe for nerve gas,bio suit for some other agents,gas mask for CS,bottom line you are ****ed.The only hope you have is the unit that gets hit manages to get some intel out and you boogie the hell out of ground zero.How can you protect yourself from an agent that will kill you if one drop hits exposed skin ? Unlike television,holding your breath just won't do

As I siad,scary ****.No civilized nation would go there,the results are bad,very bad,very very very bad.

Give me a rifle and I will aquire my own targets,don't want to fight against no flash and no smoke,I need something solid

 

[XXhalberstramXX]

who's stronger, Bin Laden or the Taliban? just wondering.

 

[rickcr42]

there is evidence that Bin Laden IS the Taliban,the controlling force

 

[rohorn]

Rick - I don't miss those chem suits one bit. Or the exercizes with them. Decon was always the worst part - and the biggest joke. In NATO, they told us that we had about a 2 week warning if things were to get hot. We also had 1 chem suit - for training along with CS filters - and two sets in storage. Then they made us where those horrible rubber boots with the 4 flaps on the sides - and always got holes in them. We had no spare boots. They always managed to hold the exercizes when the weather was the most miserable - and when chemicals were least likely to be a threat. My job - if it were real - would have been to launch out my A-10 (81-0985) out of England, hop a C-130 down to Leipheim in Germany (and hope the MiGs were busy elsewhere), hope my jet comes back, and if it had an acceptable number of holes in it, fix it and send it back out. That was the nice thing about the USAF - the enlisted/NCO guys stayed home and sent the officers out to get shot.

My last boss was from Czech - and his job was to run the radar that controlled the AA to knock down the A-10s. We have had lots of fun talking about our own sides and what we thought we knew about the other side.

XX' - sorry, but I am married to a college student, and I'm the only member of my family without any college. I won't bore you (or anybody else) with the details since I'm sure you get the point.

Thanks for pointing out the Cuba/China bit. I was hoping somebody would pick that one up!

Now here's the big picture as I see it. We went to war against Iraq. But we didn't finish it. Instead of killing a few hundred thousand more Iraqis (which wouldn't have been very compassionate), we said, in so many words, that we could but just don't feel like it. So we impose sanctions as a way of saying that they don't matter to us anymore. Time out, but at the international diplomacy level, as it were.

The other purpose of sanctions is for one country to pick a fight with another - get them to declare war on you, so as to feel more justified in blowwing them to bits and getting peace on your terms. By lifting sanctions on an avowed enemy, you are then aiding them. Not a very wise strategic move.
Yes, it's ugly. No, I don't like it either.


If, on the other hand, CHARITABLE organizations and/or individuals want to go there and help out the PEOPLE, GOD BLESS THEM!! But blindly dumping supplies and hoping that the dictators feel guilty and send it to all of the poor people because they wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the concerned and all feeling moral superiorists - is wishful thinking - no matter how well intentioned.

As far as the shah went, he was nowhere near the same league as ol' Saddam. I'm sure you (or anybody else) would have little trouble digging up all sorts of hate filled references concerning him. But if you are the proponent of balanced and rational thought as you say you are (no, I'm not questioning that anymore), then you would also do some research on any dissenting point of view on that subject. In fact, that subject IS linked to today's current events.
What happened on 11 Sep had a whole lot less to do with sanctions than that.

It is my opinion that a lot of sympathizers are exploiting recent events to promote all sorts of crackpot causes. I'm sure we could amass a sizable list on what those might be in a very short while. But we both have better things to do (I hope).

Happy listening - and good luck with the pursuit of your major(s). Sounds like a fun combination.

 

[XXhalberstramXX]

Quote:

XX' - sorry, but I am married to a college student, and I'm the only member of my family without any college.I won't bore you (or anybody else) with the details since I'm sure you get the point.

Aaaah! that explains it! ha ha!

i'll have to take your word about the whole Shah thing (or at least leave your comment uncontested) since i have extremely little time to do research (such is the life of a double major) on non-school related stuff. I'm interested in what you say about the situation in Iran being related to Sept 11/Bin Laden motivations. any more info on that?

Quote:

there is evidence that Bin Laden IS the Taliban,the controlling force

exactly, rick. if the taliban has no power over Bin Laden, what sense does it make for Bush to demand that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden? It seems like an empty gesture done for domestic effect. please tell me if i'm missing something here.

NP: Nozze di Figaro (Mozart)

 

[thomas]

Quote:

1) It is not for an outside nation to arbitrarily decide who is a suitable ruler for a sovereign nation.That is EXACTLY how wars start.It is only when borders are crossed that there is the right to intrude.Our enemies think we are wrong and our leaders are no good.Does that mean they should be able to attack/assasinate and decide our future ?

yep, on the face of it, it would certainly seem to be the simplest and most effective action. But keep in mind that the terrorists don't really give a S** about afganistan, its Isreal and Saudi arabia are what they're so angry about. Concidently, afganistan is also totally useless to us, which can't be said about Isreal and Saudi arabia. All the focus these days seems to be on afganistan, but keep in mind that the only reason its important is because bin ladin lives there. The country itself has no military power, no economic power, and no diplomatic power whatsoever. THe real focus of this problem is the entire Sslamic world, mainly Isreal and OPEC members in the mid-east.


The US has a huge jewish population, many of which are strongly connected to isreal, meaning that we will always need to be there to defend them.

Saudi Arabia produces much of the world's oil, and our economy (and military) totally relies on them. THe US foreign policy there is probably to protect the oil fields at all costs.

So do we head the terrorist's demands to move out of the area completely? See, this is the problem, we can't move out, we can't possibly applease the terrorists. So instead, we must shut them down, but as i've said earlier, sanctions and military action will not be enough, and may even backfire.

 

[rickcr42]

Yes we have a large Jewish population,but we also have a large Arab population.
Quote:

that the only reason its important is because bin ladin lives there.

Damn right,and no matter where that scumbag lived it would take on importance after the events of the 11th.

Quote:

Saudi Arabia produces much of the world's oil, and our economy (and military) totally relies on them. THe US foreign policy there is probably to protect the oil fields at all costs

And what choice do we have ?Would you see the total collapse of the economy just to appease terrorists ?I for one would not.Funny how sooo many that directly depend on a thing are willing to let others do the dirty work and then sit back in safety and say how things should be and this is/is not fair play.
Not that simple.Damn straight we protect the flow of oil,and if there was a serious threat to that flow you would see a war the likes of you never have or ever want to see.

Quote:

So instead, we must shut them down, but as i've said earlier, sanctions and military action will not be enough, and may even backfire.

Again , and I really hate to do this man ,I must disagree.If the fear is we wipe out one and another steps forward-so be it.Then that ******* becomes a target.Either we wear them down or they do the same to us.But there are some things that you just follow through on.You grit your teeth and dig in,not to be moved
Terrorism HAS been allowed to flourish.A little spanking here and there but nothing major,nothing to make the next wanna be stop and think "do I want to go there"
To do nothing or to kiss the trerrorist ass , or for us to even THINK ABOUT negotiating with people capable of the sction under discussion would be unthinkable.

Quote:

if the taliban has no power over Bin Laden, what sense does it make for Bush to demand that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden? It seems like an empty gesture done for domestic effect. please tell me if i'm missing something here.

Because that is the formal government of Afghanistan,and also the controlling force.If some want to be "front men" for a terrorist than they will share in the fate.Who is in control ? Who has the drug money ? Who is purchasing the arms ?Who is the face on international dealings ?
Guilty as charged,and god help them because I feel no mercy for them

Quote:

That was the nice thing about the USAF - the enlisted/NCO guys stayed home and sent the officers out to get shot.

Heheheheh,great line dude.I was an E5 in charge of a rifle squad,I sent my own ass out to get shot at

Quote:

Iran being related to Sept 11/Bin Laden motivations. any more info on that?

I do not want to be putting words into anyones mouth,but rohorn may be referencing the beginning of the Fundamentalist movement in the middle east.To my knowledge (from memory here guys),when the Shah was overthrone the Moslem fundamentalist movement had its first hold on any real power,an entire nation.And that nation,being a buddy of ours had a damn good military and weapons cache,including F-15s . So these guys instantly become a force to reckon with.All we could do is deny them the spare parts and hope all of the US made equipment broke down from age and lack of parts.
This success in overthrowing not only a legitimate government but setting up a new government based on a religion AND making a fool out of the united states in the process.American hostages were taken and paraded in front of the cameras 'bout once a week just to rub it in,and we did nothing.This gave hope to all the other would be "Kings" to surge forward,thinking this could happen for them also.It won't,trust me there.As long as they want to destroy thier own nation they can have at it,not my business.But start screwing around with neighboring countries or the US or the flow of oil and they will be in deep ****.

The Cuba/China thing-another time,don't want this conversation sidetracked.I will just say-we have no choice but to deal with China.The old expression about keeping your enemies close is a good one,and enemy they are-out of their own mouths .While no one is looking they are building a force to be reckoned with and as always they have the will to use it.Add the disregard for human life and you have a VERY dangerous combination.
Cuba-I do not agree with the situation at all but I do understand it.First they are small enough that we need not fear them.Second,many nations deal with cuba so in reality they are not cut off by any means,and last-mostly a political thing.Always good for a few votes.

 

[rohorn]

Rick - thanks!

Finding a good book on Iran's recent history is difficult. So here is a possibly bad mix of memory and opinion - but I believe it to be correct.

The Shah, for what ever motivation, was very pro-west and pro-USA. This was also at the height of the cold war. His stance also angered enough clerics (since he reduced their status and power in society) to get them exiled. One of whom was a certain Khomeini (sp?). If I remember right, he spent his time in exile in France, of all places.

To make a long story way too short, a certain large Commie country used him and his sympethizers to take over Iran. Even though Iran was not now Communist, they were no longer on the wrong side - and became very useful. The hardware Rick was talking about was owned by either Iran or the US - and nobody else. We sold/lent/gave the Shah some very trick toys - and losing them was a massive security blow to the US. Why? Because much of it was handed over to that infidel (and anti-Moslem, I might add) country that helped Khomeini take over. Some apologists for Khomeini claimed he did it just to hurt the US - sorry, but the connections were there all along. So while the useful idiots are now engaging in alternative flight plans for Allah, their hatred has some very secular roots.

Those angry clerics are still around. And while the end uses for the anti-USA sentiment might have changed, the emotions and anger have not. It's just that nobody remembers why. So yes, it all predates sanctions and even the fabrication of Isreal.

The Iran-Iraq war is another funny story that nobody laughs at.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

The Shah, for what ever motivation, was very pro-west and pro-USA. This was also at the height of the cold war. His stance also angered enough clerics (since he reduced their status and power in society) to get them exiled. One of whom was a certain Khomeini (sp?). If I remember right, he spent his time in exile in France, of all places.

The Ayatolla Khomeini was considered a hero in exile and had a very large following.Seems distance made him seem bettter than the up front and personal version because soon after he took over many followers regretted the decision to bring him back.The entire government was run according to holy scriptures and there was no room for comprimise.Iran rapidly went from a modern nation to a third world country in short order.
The Shah was actually a close personal friend to several US presidents,something you will not see in any reference book but I happen to have (around here somewhere) an old book of hunting stories and there is a section devoted to the shah and president______ swapping hunts.One in Colorado,the other in Iran.Seems the Ram hunting was good in Iran at one time.And the big smiles could not have been faked,the joy and comraderie was bursting from the pages.
But political leaders change,and a new pres decided not to aid the shah against the beginning of the extreme fundamentalist muslim movement.By the time it was Americans at risk it was too late,the moment had passed.Over a year in captivity for american "hostages" for breaking only one law,they were united states citizens.
The president at the time was Jimmy Carted,nice enough guy,his heart was always in the right place, but in over his head-witness the rise of terrorism,Iran hostages,rampant unemployment,interst rates and inflation high enough to almost ruin the nation,failed rescue attempt of the hostages,and Soviet expansion all over the globe.A very dangerous time.And the reason it was dangerous is the lack of direction of the US foreign policy,and the weakness perceived by our enemies.They took advantage of the oppurtunity.
It took large sums of money for the next administration (Reagan) just to get the military back to a position where it could actually perform the job.Trust me guys,before that we were in bad,very bad shape.
Choppers and planes were actually falling from the sky due to not having the spare parts to maintain them.Bullets and other ordinance were in such short supply that training was cut back,and do not think continuous training is not important.You can not have a fighting unit sitting around,polishing thier boots waiting for a war.War comes and no one is ready.

So a lot of what we see today does directly relate to times past.Not perceived injustices by the United States,but perceived weaknesses.The Taliban is on record as saying we do not have the backbone,the will to do anything.Guess they blew that one.

And oh yeah.Even in the face of all the evidence,the Taliban contends it was disgruntled US citizens that hijacked and crashed those airliners.These guys would be funny if not so dangerous.

 

[Budgie]

The Taliban is now reaping the rewards of their forign policy's.

 

[huy_ha]

Khomeini's (sp? I've seen several) platform was one of reform. He was a moderate, like many dictator like figures, until he came to power. Then things went south pretty quickly, but he's still revered in Iran for being a nationalist.