Update on the war against "Al-Qaida"

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by This_person

It matters if you want to not have to take everybody out. There are things that could be done to protect ourselves before someone takes a swing at us, sometimes. Sometimes not.

Therefore, the minority (or perhaps majority) of Japanese who really didn't want war with the United States, shouldn't have suffered the consequences of the leaders who did attack us without a declaration of war?

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by This_person

Different departments of the government not sharing information against enemies was really, really stupid. No doubt about that.

Our own global jihad? Is that what you think this is?

I agree not sharing intelligence was stupid (thank Gorelick). You wouldn't believe (well, maybe you would), just how different the data in different databases were. What a mess! Briefings to commanders during the Clinton years consisted of JICPAC, ONI and us. The information was never the same and left the commander guessing on what was correct. It was just plain stupid!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Different departments of the government not sharing information against enemies was really, really stupid. No doubt about that.

Our own global jihad? Is that what you think this is?

...that's probably too colorful word for what we're doing, a crusade, and it isn't in keeping with the concept of jihad.

We've invaded two nations. One of which has been a battleground for most of human history and the other we're on the verge of making an Iranian client state. I hope to be eating crow in 5 year, maybe 10, and the troops can look back on their losses and see that a free, vibrant, Iraq with rule of law and individual rights will be a reality. As for Afghanistan, good Lord.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Therefore, the minority (or perhaps majority) of Japanese who really didn't want war with the United States, shouldn't have suffered the consequences of the leaders who did attack us without a declaration of war?

I'm not sure how that comparrison applies, but I'll give you a comparrison to help explain what I'm saying.

Let's say that we were forcing our will on Saudia Arabia. We would only buy their oil if they demanded MTV be played in their schools and homes. We would only give them food if they promised to educate their women and force them to start wearing short skirts and plunging necklines. We threatened to bomb them to kingdom come if they didn't stand down their thrown, and elect a government. Then, when they got angry at us and claimed we were ruining their culture, so they were going to commit terrorist actions against us, we got indignant and said "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm just gonna take you out for commiting acts of terrorism against us." We would be in the wrong, and there would be actions we could have taken that stopped them from wanting to go postal on us in the first place.

However, since I don't think we did a damned thing to them that in any way paralleled this, I don't think there was any good "justification" for the hatred. We exist, and that's a temptation for them to sin against their own beliefs, and therefore we're in the wrong. IMO, that's their real perception.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

I agree not sharing intelligence was stupid (thank Gorelick). You wouldn't believe (well, maybe you would), just how different the data in different databases were. What a mess! Briefings to commanders during the Clinton years consisted of JICPAC, ONI and us. The information was never the same and left the commander guessing on what was correct. It was just plain stupid!

...of the most fascinating and least discussed aspects of 9/11 was Gorelicks memo, her bosses signing off, the complete lack of discussion about it and her subsequent position on the 9/11 panel. What the HELL was going on there??

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We've invaded two nations. One of which has been a battleground for most of human history and the other we're on the verge of making an Iranian client state. I hope to be eating crow in 5 year, maybe 10, and the troops can look back on their losses and see that a free, vibrant, Iraq with rule of law and individual rights will be a reality. As for Afghanistan, good Lord.

Given that one of those nations actively harbored terrorists whose goal was to harm us, was it wrong to invade and overthrow that nation, in our own interest?

Given that all indications showed that the other nation had a dictator who was literally killing for the chance to take the first nation's place, and had recently performed incredible acts of barbarism under the same leadership, and was over a decade into violating the terms of the cease fire from their most recent acts of global barbarism, and we were a paranoid nation from our wounds, was it wrong of us to overthrow that nation's leadership in our own interest?

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...of the most fascinating and least discussed aspects of 9/11 was Gorelicks memo, her bosses signing off, the complete lack of discussion about it and her subsequent position on the 9/11 panel. What the HELL was going on there??

I agree. Those in the field had to pick up the pieces due to her screwup. Fortunately, operators don't have the turf wars that politicians do. I have NO idea how she got on the 9/11 panel. Interesting book if anyone really knows what happened.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm not sure how that comparrison applies, but I'll give you a comparrison to help explain what I'm saying.

Let's say that we were forcing our will on Saudia Arabia. We would only buy their oil if they demanded MTV be played in their schools and homes. We would only give them food if they promised to educate their women and force them to start wearing short skirts and plunging necklines. We threatened to bomb them to kingdom come if they didn't stand down their thrown, and elect a government. Then, when they got angry at us and claimed we were ruining their culture, so they were going to commit terrorist actions against us, we got indignant and said "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm just gonna take you out for commiting acts of terrorism against us." We would be in the wrong, and there would be actions we could have taken that stopped them from wanting to go postal on us in the first place.

However, since I don't think we did a damned thing to them that in any way paralleled this, I don't think there was any good "justification" for the hatred. We exist, and that's a temptation for them to sin against their own beliefs, and therefore we're in the wrong. IMO, that's their real perception.

I can understand not going out of one's way to pizz someone off. (I'd make an exception in F'stool's case). Countries all look to their national interests first. We may have very close first tier allies in GB, Canada, Aus, and NZ (sometimes), but each is looking out for themselves first. Since we don't have aliens outside our little piece of ground in the universe trying to knock us off, we fight amongst ourselves.

[ImnoMensa]

Its all our fault , everything is .


We suck big time, we need to close the doors and call it a day. Kiss the asses of the terrorists and send all of our companies abroad.

We need to starve for the next hundred years to pay the world back for being the greatest country in the world.

Geez get a life folks.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Is that kinda like socialists class warfare?