Hi Sig; Re: "Your expectation seems to be that the US should deactivate terrorists living in foreign countries without offending any of their citizens or killing anyone."
Hey, if my expectations were as high as you claim, then you'd be right to complain about them. But I have no such high expectations. For example, with regard to the killing of six terrorist suspects in Yemen by US spy plane, I wrote that it was legal and a good idea:
Bilow, November 7, 2002
In terms of its impact on a nation, running this sort of project (which is essentially a natural extension of standard "spy vs spy" activities that have been around for millennia) is negligible. There are not thousands of weeping widows and orphans in Yemen. Millions of civilians have not been deprived of simple necessities such as electricity. I guess what I'm trying to say is that cloak and dagger operations like this are fully compatible with "peace". Where we (and Israel) have gotten in trouble with the Arabs is not over the occasional targetted killing, and not even from the short desert wars, but instead from activities that effect large numbers of civilians for long periods of time. That would be Israel's occupation of various territories and the US' support for sanctions against Iraq. #reply-18204528
Bilow, November 7, 2002
Right now it looks like Yemen approved and assisted in the act, so it would clearly have to be classified the same way as you would classify the somewhat similar action that ended the lives of Bonnie and Clyde. In no nation on the planet do armed criminals (with crimes of sufficient seriousness) on the loose have a full and complete "right to life". Since the action would be perfectly legal in the US (other than for Posse Comitatus, maybe), I would think that it is legal as an action of the combined police / CIA forces of the US and Yemen. In the event that Yemen had not agreed to it, then I still see it as a legal police action (and thereby compatible with "peace".) #reply-18209558
Re: "For which you have presented no plan."
Not at all. I've presented a plan that you don't like, but it's a plan. It's the same plan that was in place (somewhat mishandled) before the WTC attack, and it's the same plan that is being used all over the planet by most of the countries on it. Terrorism that is not state supported is a crime, it is a problem for the police.
Our soldiers are lousy policemen, even in countries that speak English, and are absolutely hopeless at policing an Arab land. I've repeatedly stated that the fight against terrorism is best waged by the police (and spies and stuff), not by the military. And it is those elements that actually do the heavy lifting when it comes to terrorist capture. The above event in Yemen is a great example. By the way, why is it that the military has so far been unable to capture Osama? Or prevented the terrorists from blowing Spain out of the coalition? These are not military problems, they are police problems, and they are foreign relations problems.
Re: "However, perhaps I have misread your position, which may be that nothing should be done to prevent the coming attacks."
Are you so afraid, so cowering in fear that you think that only the US military can save you? Is that why you ignore all the security agencies whose mission is to arrest terrorists before they can hurt you? Do you really think that the FBI is "nothing"?
All the US military can do is to influence foreign governments to be more responsive to our desires. What Bush did with the military in Iraq was to remove from power a foreign government leaving an out of control mess behind. He took what was a useful threat (military action against countries that support state terrorism) and turned it into a toothless invalid (a country which is stuck so deep in Iraq that it can't threaten a flea).
A year ago, you were so fearful that you weren't able to think clearly on the subject of WMDs and Iraq. Hey, it's not your fault, the Administration lied like a dog to you, but nevertheless, your previous posts impeach your judgement not just on that, but also on how our troops would be treated by the Iraqis:
Sig, February 25, 2004
... Saddam must go, with proof that he has longer range missiles than reported, proof he still has gas type warheads on shells, proof that his does not plan to live up to disarming, and 100% agreement that he should disarm or be disarmed by some means ... As I once posted, we have lost an average of < 300 people in combat during the last three wars. ... #reply-18623999
Sig, February 26, 2004
IMO Tony Blair is is the only man outside the US who has been fully informed as to total and specific information we have on Saddam's WMD's. ... What proof does the world need ?. ... Saddam has missiles with a range longer than permitted. He has prohibited bombs that were supposedly destroyed and filled with a liquid that is most surely, a biological formula. ... #reply-18633152
Also see #reply-18644357 #reply-18650416
A year ago, all you could talk about was "proof". Where's your proof now? Where's your logic on the WMDs? Where are all those weapons you were so f'ing scared about? Huh? What's that? You want me to trust your judgement on foreign policy now, even after you've proved that you're a fool?
This one is a classic. I noted that if the Iraqis were going to greet us as liberators, then why did we need so many thousands of troops. Your response was that it was just a practice run. The reality was that we went into Iraq with so few troops that we were unable to prevent wholesale looting:
Sig, March 6, 2003
Iraq is being handled as a maximum "show of force" to make terrorists think twice and also to convince those even in South America, or anywhere, that they will be hunted down even while hiding under the protection of sovereign regime. And to force Saddam, if possible, to give up the WMD's and avoid a war. Military people need training , need relief from boredom, [Bilow: LOL!!!] need to feel useful, need to understand what they may be faced with in dealings with foreigners, need to test new weapons, need to find how to move fast even to areas 1/2 the globe away. And arrive with enough spares and with equipment working ... #reply-18662494
Here's your version of the Iraq war, just before the fiasco began. No wonder you were in favor of it, you thought it was going to be a walk in the park:
Sig, March 9, 2003
What we actually do in this war may be different than what the public is told so assumptions based on past conflicts can be in error.
1. I assume ,or have been told, that Saddam himself is Ground Zero this time. If we get him on the first shot it could end within hours. His Generals have our phone number.
2. We could possibly march sedately toward Bagdad, with very few nearby shots being fired, preceded by leaflet-
dropping aircraft, dropping white flags, saying the time is now to surrender and here is how to do it- where to go.
" We come not to fight, but to depose Saddam" which civilians would probably approve of.
... #reply-18676609
Here it is one year on and the latest news is that both the Sunnis and Shiites are marching in complaint about the "best ally the US ever had", Israel, using helicopters to kill a paralyzed old guy in a wheelchair. Do you really think that these people are going to suddenly become your friends? The hell do you think that they're going to like you when I, an American who shares many of your basic assumptions about life, think that your policies are those of a dangerous idiot? No, take it from me, the Iraqis will keep shooting at us until we leave, and I will keep complaining about it till then too.
Face the facts,
get out of Iraq.
-- Carl |
