Turn on thread page Beta

How will 'the war on terror' be won? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambridgemuscle)
    Iran i seriously believe there is the possiblity of regime change without the use of our force. The student dissident groups are growing strong and the mullahs can only use force to repress them for so long. Iran is infinitely different to NK. It is not a nuclear power, it's people have the internet and CNN and we've got quater of a million men on its doorstep. We have the carrot but they also know that we are not afraid to use the stick. Either the mullahs reform or we sponsor their overthrow, followed by a concerted effort to install a democratic government. I don't see a problem if this government is somewhat theocratic. it will need to be for a healthy transition, but it must operate within a demoratic constitution which will have to be written in the tradition of Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
    what about North Korea?What if they are also the ones, who provide terrorists with money purposely in order to weaken USA?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    There isn't any sign that Iraq is a liberal democracy, or on its way to becoming a liberal democracy, however. A dubious election with religiously oriented parties led by unknown individuals and dependent on foreign occupiers for their security doesn't exactly count.
    Certainly, as an investment of 176 thousand million dollars it seems to have been a complete waste of money: the Iraqi people are no freer, happier, safer or wealthier; there are no fewer weapons of mass destruction than before the war; no oil is coming out and the allegedly massive contracts for US oil companies that the loopier conspiracy theorists thought inspired the war haven't emerged.
    It has given a boost to the loopier islamist bigots and a place to attack Americans- again, the iraqi people aren't exactly benefitting from this.
    In short, except as a way to get the US army out of America for some unknown purpose it has been a complete disaster. The alarming thing is that the US government doesn't seem to have noticed that.
    I never said it would be a short haul. It will not. This war will last a generation. Hopefully the situation in Iraq will calm down a while before we reach old age. I watched Fullujah with as much horror as anyone else but this should spur us on further. The reason the Middle East is so much more a priority in this fight is because it is a breeding ground for anti-democratic and dangerous feeling. This is a result of the Palestine problem in the most part and for countries in which democratic reform can be brought about peacefully, the resolution of this half century old conflict (i know the ethnic strife goes back millenia) will be imperative. We should be resolving this problem as a next priority as i explained in a previous post but also fighting the insurgency where it is- in Iraq.

    Now the more evil regimes of this region know how resolute we are in our commitment to this war and their people begin realise we will not desert them like we did in 1991, the subsurface bounties of this quagmire will start to emerge. How about the Syrain withdrawal from Lebanon (2005) or the Libya concessions on WMD (2004). By standing fast in the face of seemingly insurmountable danger we will see these transformation through.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowkin)
    They need Cuba to stay a communist dictatorship, without good old Cuba Gbay wouldn't be allowed would it?
    Im sure it could be moved to Puerto Rico.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IZZY!)
    what about North Korea?What if they are also the ones, who provide terrorists with money purposely in order to weaken USA?
    NK is a million times more repressive than Iran. They are worlds apart. Theocracies are notoriously unstable and short lived. Stalinist states on the other hand are so successful that they can't be toppled in the same way through supporting dissident elements. There are no dissident elements in the country for the reason they would be executed (in public by all accounts) as soon as they became present. NK is the biggest challenge we face IMHO. It is a nuclear power we must either leave to fester hoping for the best or we must confront it with the deaths of thousands of our own troops and potentially millions of NKoreans.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambridgemuscle)
    NK is a million times more repressive than Iran. They are worlds apart. Theocracies are notoriously unstable and short lived. Stalinist states on the other hand are so successful that they can't be toppled in the same way through supporting dissident elements. There are no dissident elements in the country for the reason they would be executed (in public by all accounts) as soon as they became present. NK is the biggest challenge we face IMHO. It is a nuclear power we must either leave to fester hoping for the best or we must confront it with the deaths of thousands of our own troops and potentially millions of NKoreans.
    funny, i dont see any (non-korean) troops in north korea though do i. wonder why that is...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My opinion is too complex for me to explain this late at night (and this drunk) but it's similar to that of the journalist from Mars.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambridgemuscle)
    I never said it would be a short haul. It will not. This war will last a generation. Hopefully the situation in Iraq will calm down a while before we reach old age.
    so what sort of death rate among iraqis do you think acceptable over the time it will take you to reach old age? How do you propose to recruit and pay for enough US troops to occupy Iraq, Iran and such other nations as may need to be occupied until our old age when- somehow- they will become liberal democracies?
    [I watched Fullujah with as much horror as anyone else but this should spur us on further.
    It should also spur us to think very carefully aout the tactics and strategy being followed.
    The reason the Middle East is so much more a priority in this fight is because it is a breeding ground for anti-democratic and dangerous feeling.
    Not only the middle East: parts of Asia and South America too: the difference is that US intervention in both the middle east and South America has been to remove the wrong kind of democratic government.
    This is a result of the Palestine problem in the most part and for countries in which democratic reform can be brought about peacefully, the resolution of this half century old conflict (i know the ethnic strife goes back millenia) will be imperative. We should be resolving this problem as a next priority as i explained in a previous post but also fighting the insurgency where it is- in Iraq.
    the insurgency is only in Iraq because the USA invaded Iraq. It is so strong in Iraq because of the blunders the US made in both the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its attempts to justify both.
    Now the more evil regimes of this region know how resolute we are in our commitment to this war and their people begin realise we will not desert them like we did in 1991, the subsurface bounties of this quagmire will start to emerge. How about the Syrain withdrawal from Lebanon (2005) or the Libya concessions on WMD (2004). By standing fast in the face of seemingly insurmountable danger we will see these transformation through.
    Libya has the same regime it had been before: Ghadaffy is now our son of a ***** so presumably that's acceptable. Diven the state of Lebanon before Syria invaded it it is perfectly possible it will again collapse into civil war and the extremists will regain power. Who will intervene when- because it is more likely to be when than if- that happens?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It can't - you can't fight an invisible enemy.
    Terrorism is due in part to the hatred between the West and the Middle East and the war on terror isn't improving matters... as long as the war on terror goes on there will be terrorists, and as long as there are terrorists there will be a war on terror. Vicious circle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'so what sort of death rate among iraqis do you think acceptable over the time it will take you to reach old age? How do you propose to recruit and pay for enough US troops to occupy Iraq, Iran and such other nations as may need to be occupied until our old age when- somehow- they will become liberal democracies?'

    A few points here. i) there are only so many insurgents. Just like we can't be in NK, Iran, Iraq and SA, they can't either. Remember, the core insurgency is foreign mostly from SA and Pakistan. Most of the native insurgency is opportunistic and the consequence of lots of unemployed young men. As the economy settles we will fight s more limited capacity. ii) We don't necessarily hve to occupy Iran, Syria, SA or any regimes in Latin America who expound hostile values. Just ensure the elites write democratic constitutions whilst making sure a threat is in place if need's be. NK is the only instance where an occupation will be required, and unlike Islam, Stalinist communism will not produce an insurgency as seen in the ME. iii) They will become liberal democracies because we will advise their constitutions to conform to a Madisonian template. May take a theocratic or autoritarian transition but the threat of force will eventually mak sure the constitution is respected.

    'It should also spur us to think very carefully aout the tactics and strategy being followed.'

    I'd rather fight the insurgency in Fallujah than in Baghdad or eventuially Boston.

    'Not only the middle East: parts of Asia and South America too: the difference is that US intervention in both the middle east and South America has been to remove the wrong kind of democratic government.'

    Yes. Democratically elected regimes that oppress their people and promote anti-American values. One cannot sell oneself into slavery. Hitler was elected as u know. What's the difference between an elected or non-elected tyranny. Chile 1973. Take your point. But that was in the age of Cold War narrow realism and was a part of a bigger idealistic fight.

    'the insurgency is only in Iraq because the USA invaded Iraq. It is so strong in Iraq because of the blunders the US made in both the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its attempts to justify both.'

    Yes, you are in part correct. BUT it was the fault of traditional Republican conservatives that we were not given the resources we needed. Even they now realise the expense of the PNAC.

    'Libya has the same regime it had been before: Ghadaffy is now our son of a ***** so presumably that's acceptable. Diven the state of Lebanon before Syria invaded it it is perfectly possible it will again collapse into civil war and the extremists will regain power. Who will intervene when- because it is more likely to be when than if- that happens?'

    He is not our son of a *****. But in the WOT there is the carrot and the stick. Ghadaffy knows we have the stick but we also need to show the carrot when he makes concessions. This is not appeasemnet, this is not detente. It is part of our efforts at coercive reform. We will only treat Ghadaffy as anything like our friend when his Libya is a democracy. We are just letting him know this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Democracy is just a pointless buzz word in many situations having no helpful effect.
    The war on terror will be over when everyone becomes tolerant, accepting, not greedy, hateful and spiteful. When people can realise that they are going to have to compromise to live together with peace and love.
    However, with human nature, that day will never come. Maybe one day, people will realize that killing each other over religion is just silly, but in the current political climate I just don't see that happening.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambridgemuscle)
    'so what sort of death rate among iraqis do you think acceptable over the time it will take you to reach old age? How do you propose to recruit and pay for enough US troops to occupy Iraq, Iran and such other nations as may need to be occupied until our old age when- somehow- they will become liberal democracies?'

    A few points here. i) there are only so many insurgents. Just like we can't be in NK, Iran, Iraq and SA, they can't either. Remember, the core insurgency is foreign mostly from SA and Pakistan. Most of the native insurgency is opportunistic and the consequence of lots of unemployed young men. As the economy settles we will fight s more limited capacity.
    I think you are overoptimistic here: remember, the US was going to be in and out quickly and all over once the WMD were found. Well, there weren't any WMD to find and- all of a sudden- the idea was to make Iraq a killing ground for the world's fanatics, whether the Iraqis liked it or not. Wherever the fighters come from they have willing supporters in Iraq itself and the increasing polarisation of iraq between sunni, shia, kurd and others means that there will always be hostile elemensts.
    ii) We don't necessarily hve to occupy Iran, Syria, SA or any regimes in Latin America who expound hostile values. Just ensure the elites write democratic constitutions whilst making sure a threat is in place if need's be.
    But, of course, there's no need for them to pay any attention to the constitution. You are assuming that threats will be enough. They didn't work in Iraq or Lebanon in the past, and it is precisely the elites which the US needn't worry about.
    NK is the only instance where an occupation will be required, and unlike Islam, Stalinist communism will not produce an insurgency as seen in the ME.
    It will produce a- possibly nuclear bomb-aided resistance to begin with though and quite possibly strong passive or even active hostility from Chiona.
    iii) They will become liberal democracies because we will advise their constitutions to conform to a Madisonian template. May take a theocratic or autoritarian transition but the threat of force will eventually mak sure the constitution is respected.
    the way South american constitutions were respected at the threat of US force. The problem is that in muslim countries politics is seen as something separate from constitutions. The koran, they believe, is all the constitution they need.
    'It should also spur us to think very carefully aout the tactics and strategy being followed.'

    I'd rather fight the insurgency in Fallujah than in Baghdad or eventuially Boston.
    If the US hadn't invaded Iraq there wouldn't be an insurgency in Falluja. If the US had thought carefully about what they would do after they invaded iraq there might not be a Falluja or it might noit have been so bloody.
    'Not only the middle East: parts of Asia and South America too: the difference is that US intervention in both the middle east and South America has been to remove the wrong kind of democratic government.'

    Yes. Democratically elected regimes that oppress their people and promote anti-American values. One cannot sell oneself into slavery. Hitler was elected as u know.
    so was George Bush. In fact many dictaators who oppress the people got the job because they espoused American values. Hitler, as you don't know, wasn't elected chancellor when he first took power. He became Chancellor because the politicians thought they could use him and appointed him to the job.
    What's the difference between an elected or non-elected tyranny. Chile 1973. Take your point. But that was in the age of Cold War narrow realism and was a part of a bigger idealistic fight.
    Hardly idealistic or realistic. Allende worked by constiutional means and would have been disposed of constitutionally fairly soon.
    'the insurgency is only in Iraq because the USA invaded Iraq. It is so strong in Iraq because of the blunders the US made in both the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its attempts to justify both.'

    Yes, you are in part correct. BUT it was the fault of traditional Republican conservatives that we were not given the resources we needed. Even they now realise the expense of the PNAC.
    Eh? it was the neocons who thought that high technology and superior weapons could make up for men on the ground when it came to close physical control. The US army wanted a force three times as large as the one they had and wanted to retain and use the Iraqi police and army. For all their faults they were about all that was organised- apart from religious groups and the Baath party- in iraq to build a state on.
    'Libya has the same regime it had been before: Ghadaffy is now our son of a ***** so presumably that's acceptable. Diven the state of Lebanon before Syria invaded it it is perfectly possible it will again collapse into civil war and the extremists will regain power. Who will intervene when- because it is more likely to be when than if- that happens?'

    He is not our son of a *****. But in the WOT there is the carrot and the stick. Ghadaffy knows we have the stick but we also need to show the carrot when he makes concessions. This is not appeasemnet, this is not detente. It is part of our efforts at coercive reform. We will only treat Ghadaffy as anything like our friend when his Libya is a democracy. We are just letting him know this.
    Ghadaffy is already being treated as a friend, however. In the fairly short term this may be a disaster- there is no obvious successor and he has destroyed civic politics in Libya. i notice that the prospect- which is much more likely than formally hostile regimes- of continuous low-level war all over the middle East which makes the actual formal governments hold no more ground than they can shoot across which seems fairly likely doesn't seem to have occurred to you or the US government.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    it won't. this world is full of evil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well not invading countries would be a good start.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is no war on terror, it's all in our minds - yes, very Orwellian

    Seriously though, in America, Iraq isn't even in the papers anymore, even CNN barely mentions it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ask Bush, he got us into this he can get us out!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwenyth!)
    There is no war on terror, it's all in our minds - yes, very Orwellian

    Seriously though, in America, Iraq isn't even in the papers anymore, even CNN barely mentions it.
    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/
    I said 'barely'.

    Plus, this story is also in competition with Britney Spear's pregnancy, which appeared on the front page of one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, several weeks ago. :eek:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwenyth!)
    I said 'barely'.

    Plus, this story is also in competition with Britney Spear's pregnancy, which appeared on the front page of one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, several weeks ago. :eek:
    One front page story isn't enough for you? There are other things happening in the world you know, and some of them are more important than hearing about another American or Iraqi getting killed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All I'm saying is that when actual 'wars' were going on the coverage was intense and people were 'in the know'. Nowadays, all that's become of Iraq is a passive-aggressive back-handed stance by Republicans to get oil. The general population of North America can hardly identify where Fallujah is and state what happened there - it's sad but that's reality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwenyth!)
    All I'm saying is that when actual 'wars' were going on the coverage was intense and people were 'in the know'. Nowadays, all that's become of Iraq is a passive-aggressive back-handed stance by Republicans to get oil. The general population of North America can hardly identify where Fallujah is and state what happened there - it's sad but that's reality.
    What oil would that be? Iraq was producing more oil before the war than it does now.

    And have you considered the fact that the war was covered more at the beginning because the outcome was uncertain and whether we won or not would have a major effect on world politics? Can the death of a few American soldiers have the same effect?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,684

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.