Who does this guy think he is?!

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

How do you win a war against an ideology anyway?

Sure you can. Nazism was by-and-large defeated ... and that's just one example.

But I do see what you're saying. In the sense of ideology based in religion, I hold the view that it cannot be defeated short of genocide. The fight itself undoubtably causes issues such as martyrism and the easy rise of personality cults. This is part of the reason I maintain that the (formerly known as) War on Terror calls for an unending vigilance. While I believe that Islam is very much responsible for this war, I also don't think that attacking the religion itself does any good in fighting terrorism - short of genocide.

And genocide is completely out of the question, as far as I'm concerned.

Haplo , you don't get it do you , there was no agreement in that case there was unilateral declarations .
The unilateral declarations were conditional and the conditions were never met so they don't mean anything.
Try reading what I wrote again .

Sorry you will have to refresh my memory . What agreements ?
Israel has only had two agreements and they have both been stuck to , I think you are confusing that with unilteral declarations which don't mean bugger all and joint declarations where neither party has complied with the arrangements which makes them null and void

The joint declarations would cover the Lebanon situation and the unilateral the Hamas one , so by posting a link to the Hamas situation you are proving my point .
The only actual agreements have been between Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan , thougn both contain conditions that call for a final settlement of the Palestinian question so while they have both been stuck to so far they have not been completed.

[rubenandthejets]

Divide and conquer-the same tactic employed in Iraq to finally gain some headway against the insurgents, is being mooted for Afganistan. Get the moderates on side, isolate the hard core, more of the "hearts and minds" approach in the relatively secure areas.

Sounds like a reasonable idea.....

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh I see - you apparently either don't understand the term BROKERED - or simply wish to ignore the fact that there was an AGREEMENT made between Hamas and Israel - Egypt being the go between. At no point was the ceasfire unilateral and conditional.

Ok- lemme see if I get this right....Which side called for the unilateral - meaning independant side - ceasefire? Was it the Israeli's who were getting blown up with rockets, mortars and suicide bombs? I am sure that sat well with the average citizen - their government saying "ok we won't retaliate, we are calling a cease fire even though its unilateral - so it only applies to us.".... hmmm - kinda doubt it huh? Ok - lets flip the coin - musta been Hamas then right? So the Hamas leader goes in and says "ok - I know those filthy jews are targetting us with their helicopter missiles, artillery and whatnot, but you know - I am getting kinda tired. We are all going to take a break from killing the jews for a while...." Well mate - I just don't see that happening either....

However, a third party coming in and saying - ok - they wont shoot at you if you dont blow them up - lets calm down and take a break - is reasonable. Both sides then say - ok if they lay off, we will - but just for 6 months. During that time we can talk and maybe work something out, but if nothing is solved by then, there are no futher guarantees...

This is a very simplified version of it - but both sides DID agree to the ceasefire. Hamas - an ISLAMIC TERRORIST organization - broke the agreement. It is what it is, and you can spin it however you want, but facts are facts.

I also noticed that you didn't dare touch the historical facts regarding Mohammed and his breaking of treaties - nor did you address Yasser Arafat's speech in which he told his followers that he had no intention of following through on the Oslo peace accords.

Lemme guess - that wasn't any agreement either was it? *For the record - both sides broke that one - though again it was the palestinian authority that did so first.

[CaptainHaplo]

Joegrundman - you asked what is the difference between this policy and the one used in Iraq.

I will answer as clearly as I can.

In Iraq, the insurgency was, for a very long period, sustained by support for local chieftans who were swayed to the side of the terrorists. However, those terrorists tried to control those chieftans and warlords the same way they do everything else, through bullying threats and violence. Recall that these warlords were there before the war on terror.... So they are indigenous people that are not part of the root problem - merely locals caught up in the war itself. They lent their aid to one side, and often got kicked in the teeth for it. So they switched sides. Which actually is not an uncommon occurance in that part of the world, or for that matter anywhere that local warlords are emplaced.

In the case of Afghanistan, the policy is radically different. Your not talking about local leaders who predate the conflict as "simply" local leaders - your talking about talking directly to elements of a terrorist organization. Sure they may be "moderate" elements - but they are still PART of the problem.

Let me give you a totally different example. On one hand you have a sickness in your body. You take a b-12 shot or whatever to boost your immune system - basically "convincing" a bunch of white blood cells to support the call and go fight and help kill whatever is wrong. Thats what was done in Iraq - get a bunch of people to turn on the problem.

However, in the proposal for Afghanistan, your not going to get the sickness to turn on itself. Cancer won't kill cancer friend. In Iraq you were dealing with outside parties - in Afghanistan, your talking about dealing directly with the sickness.

And if you read the links I provided to Tribesman, you will see why diplomacy with the root problem isn't going to work - because they WILL violate the terms as soon as its expedient.

Oh I see - you apparently either don't understand the term BROKERED - or simply wish to ignore the fact that there was an AGREEMENT made between Hamas and Israel - Egypt being the go between. At no point was the ceasfire unilateral and conditional.

There was no agreement , following the PLO conference in Cairo Hamas made a declaration , part of that declaration made its terms conditional on an end to Israeli military operations and the opening of the crossings , the same terms for a potential agreement they are putting forward today...plus of course the prisoner exchange .
If it was an agreement like you claim , where is the Israeli part of the agreement ?
Come on its simple , an agreement involves agreed declarations between two or more parties in dispute . All you are showing is a declartion by one party with nothing from the other, that is not an agreement its a unilteral decaration .
But hey if you want to focus on the wider Palestinian declaration from that time insted of just the Hamas one , what conditions are set out in article 2?

I also noticed that you didn't dare touch the historical facts regarding Mohammed and his breaking of treaties - nor did you address Yasser Arafat's speech in which he told his followers that he had no intention of following through on the Oslo peace accords.

:rotfl:
The peace accords ?
Remind me again , what were the main sticking points that meant the accords could never be followed through on ? Would it be that the main problems were never addressed ?

[SteamWake]

[heartc]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

In what way?

In ways of defeatism indeed.

America - together with its allies - destroyed Nazi-Germany in Western Europe and Imperial Japan in Asia and the Pacific. Don't tell me they can't deal with a bunch of ragheads in the desert. It is only because of the "international pressure" - rather bickering - of "Allies" who are not willing to commit effective force to the fight because they taught "World Peace" to their people for decades. They could afford to do that because the US took care of the Soviet threat for all those decades, while being lectured they would threaten this "World Peace" by a bunch of moronic hippies in Europe and the US itself.
Now, these days the Western mindset is dominated by them, and the recent US election may well have made the last bastion of determined and effective resistance disappear, which the enemy feared the most.

The Taliban / Islamic extremists cannot ever dream of winning their jihad against the West and free societies close to what they claim their own lands by military means. In a sound world, they would be crushed and destroyed, totally. But while the enemy stands no chance against the military might of the West, their only hope is to engage the West through terrorist acts and propaganda, it hopes to win on the battlefield of Western policy against weak minds and defeatists.

And now the President of the US considers to negotiate with them. One of the greatest world powers in human history, being embedded in one of the strongest military alliances ever, NATO, cannot deal with the ragheads and wants to talk with them. Give me a break.

The demise of the Roman Empire against a bunch of barbarians came about mostly from slow but steady decay from within. The same can happen to the great free societies of the West. Never before has there been such a grand alliance of free people as today. We don't have to and should not give in to a bunch of 5th century radicals.

[Enigma]

In ways of defeatism indeed.

America - together with its allies - destroyed Nazi-Germany in Western Europe and Imperial Japan in Asia and the Pacific. Don't tell me they can't deal with a bunch of ragheads in the desert. It is only because of the "international pressure" - rather bickering - of "Allies" who are not willing to commit effective force to the fight because they taught "World Peace" to their people for decades. They could afford to do that because the US took care of the Soviet threat for all those decades, while being lectured they would threaten this "World Peace" by a bunch of moronic hippies in Europe and the US itself.
Now, these days the Western mindset is dominated by them, and the recent US election made the last bastion of determined and effective resistance disappear.

The Taliban / Islamic extremists cannot ever dream of winning their jihad against the West by military means. In a sound world, they would be crushed and destroyed, totally. But while the enemy stands no chance against the military might of the West, their only hope is to engage the West through terrorist acts and propaganda, it hopes to win on the battlefield of Western policy against weak minds and defeatists.

And now the President of the US considers to negotiate with them. One of the greatest world powers in human history, being embedded in one of the strongest military alliances ever, NATO, cannot deal with the ragheads and wants to talk with them. Give me a break.

The demise of the Roman Empire against a bunch of barbarians came about mostly from slow but steady decay from within. The same can happen to the great free societies of the West. Never before has there been such a grand alliance of free people as today. We don't have to and should not give in to a bunch of 5th century radicals.

Every comparison you made per the enemy was an organized, uniformed military backed by a state or government. Terrorists are not. It's a big difference. No hill to take, no government to topple, etc, etc. A war on terrorism, while in good intention, is like a war on jealousy. You can't stamp it out completely, especially using the military to do so.
You also clearly didn't read the article, either. And, the same question applies to you: Do you suppose that Secretary Gates, Gen. Petreus, and President Obama are all weak minded defeatists?

[Schroeder]

@Heartc

And your suggestion is what?
Nuke them all?
We are not facing a country here that can be brought down like Nazi-Germany.
You would have to kill the entire islamic population to get rid of terrorists.

Or shall we continue what we did over the last 8 years?
Did not really get us anywhere, did it?

I don't like to talk to these idiots too, but something in our strategy has to be changed and military power alone can't win this since the terrorists have a safe haven in Pakistan. Unless of course we would flatten Pakistan as well but then they would go to.....

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Every comparison you made per the enemy was an organized, uniformed military backed by a state or government. Terrorists are not. It's a big difference. You also clearly didn't read the article, either. And, the same question applies to you: Do you suppose that Secretary Gates, Gen. Petreus, and President Obama are all weak minded defeatists?

"Terrorists" are terrorists because they engaging their enemy in a conventional way would see their demise quickly, while in earlier times they might have still been able to do that. Instead they learned to exploit the weaknesses of inter-Western relationships and its domestic policy by engaging in acts of terror. It is their most effective and only way to fight. That shouldn't stop us though from destroying them on open battlefields if they or their allies are foolish enough to go there, and neither from identifiying them as a hostile force against us that and whose sponsors must be destroyed / stopped / bullied.

To your second point: A military member, such as a General, can only act within the realms, limits and conditions set by the politicians. It is the politicians (and in a free society, also their voters) responsiblity to make sure that an effective campaign can be fought. If the military is constraint by politics, it might have to consider options it might not consider otherwise.
Anyway, if the General's ideas of talks are about "divide and conquer", I'm all for it.
But what Pres. Obama said was "No, we are not winning in Afghanistan" and "I would like to talk to them, but it's so difficult". **** that. If you figure you can't do it and achieve anything with it, then don't think aloud about it, because it's a sign of weakness for them. Oh, and saying "No, we are not winning" to international press is just that, too.

Oh, and btw:

""If you talk to Gen. Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us," said Obama.""

I thought there was no success in Iraq? Surely that was the notion that Pres. Obama built half his campaign on?

The US lost South-Vietnam because of the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union and because of the hippies back home. They might lose against the radical Islamic / Islamist threat for the same reasons, minus the nuclear threat, and this time with much worse implications for the West, especially Europe with her ever growing Muslim minorities.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Or shall we continue what we did over the last 8 years?
Did not really get us anywhere, did it?

It did.

1. There were no more attacks on the US during all that time.

2. The attacks on Madrid and London were EXACTLY designed to exploit the weakness of Western societies and make them vote for governments that would reduce the military threat against the enemy by withdrawing from the fight, and at least in Spain it worked.

3. The West is sitting in Afghanistan, and at least some members of the NATO alliance are engaging the Taliban in earnest, which makes it harder for them to recruit and train in what was an undisturbed safe heaven prior to the invasion. It would make it even harder for them if some of the other NATO members would get off their asses.

4. An enemy of the West with the potential to develop WMDs - maybe falsely identified as being in possession of them, since he was in the past - has been removed, and replaced with further presence of the West in the general area of where the threat originates, which again makes it harder for the enemy to operate, network and rally. The notion that Saddam Hussein was indeed an asset these days because of his secular government style is ridiculous. He might have been in the 80s, but later he was an outspoken enemy and it is ridiculous to believe he did not and would not conspire with other enemies of the West because of their religious background. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Saddam kept them at arms length, but that sure didn't stop him from lending a hand and he sure didn't stop them from conducting their operations. He handed out money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for Christ sakes.

I think the West was on the right track. Naturally the road is rocky, mistakes happen and there might always be better ways to tackle the threat. Wishing to talk with them because "No, we are not winning" is not one of those.
Meeting over a coffee with him while only a fool would believe that his scientists are not busy building a nuclear bomb meanwhile, is not either.

1. There were no more attacks on the US during all that time.

Wow no attacks in a whole 8 years , errrrrr......how many years was it between the bombing of the World Trade Center and the next attack on the world Trade Center ?

2. The attacks on Madrid and London were EXACTLY designed to exploit the weakness of Western societies and make them vote for governments that would reduce the military threat against the enemy by withdrawing from the fight, and at least in Spain it worked.

Hold on , the Spanish vote was going to be very close anyway , as far as the population was concerned there was an overwhelming majority against involvement in Iraq from the start , the only real impact the Madrid bombings had on the election was the government supporters abandoning them when the government lied about the bombings and continued to lie even after the lies were thoroughtly exposed .
Plus of course Spain is still in Afghanistan , while Canada and Holland who didn't get bombed have said they are pulling out .
It appears your point doesn't fly very well .

Oh and ....

The US lost South-Vietnam because of the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union and because of the hippies back home.

too funny

[CaptainHaplo]

Ahh once again we get the "ridicule because I can't refute" arguement from le' tribesman on the Vietnam war...

Not suprising since he has done the same regarding historical proof of duplicity by muslims that I pointed out.

HeartC- a word of advice. Don't respond with intelligence or fact, it won't be understood....

Good points though - and your right BTW - the "home sentiment" has been why things have changed. That is how we as a people and government are setup, and while I don't necessarily agree with this, at least its being done in accordance within the constitutional road laid out by our founders - an election bringing a new leader.

Ahh once again we get the "ridicule because I can't refute"

Errrrr.....Haplo have you had any luck finding a ceasefire agreement signed by the two parties who needed to sign it for your claims to be true ?
Is the answer NO because the agreement you claim existed never existed

Don't respond with intelligence or fact,

Do you understand the meaning of the word "fact"?
Obviously not .

So America couldn't win vietnam because of hippies and Russians , no mention of the Chinese or Vietmanese , or the American government and military ....it was the hippies and russians that done it:rotfl:
Anyone with even half a brain would first consider the American pre-war studies of the situation in Indo-China before they made a silly claim about hippies and Russians , then they would look at the the situation as it developed in South Vietnam before they made a silly claim about hippies and Russians , then they would look at other foriegn involvements in indo-china and perhaps mention Rusisa among others as part of the geo-political situation , then they might add hippies as an irrelevant little foot note in the later stages when the war was already unwinnable .
But only a muppet would attempt to claim it was the Russians and hippies that done it as that is such a shallow thoughtless claim that doesn't even scratch the surface of the topic .