The Salvador Option

[Trent 0]

Quote

Not blaming the US for his actions after.

Yes you are. Read the rest of your post.

Quote

But when you train an animal, why would you be suprised if he turns against you?

I would have hoped that people learn, unfortunately we seem to enjoy making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

Unfortunately, when dealing with humans... you cannot trust them 100%, no matter how much you help them. Should we stop helping everyone? Would you have been happier today if Afghanistan was part of Russia and Iraq was part of Iran? Times change and so do people. Helping get Russia out of Afghanistan seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, so did helping Iraq defend herself from Iran.

Still, to blame the US without blaming Russia and Iran is silly.

Oh, hello again!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Also, no US troops would cross into syria or Iran.

That's not what the article itself says:

Quote

The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

[billvon 2,400]

>Still, to blame the US without blaming Russia and Iran is silly.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone.

But I also think you have to learn from your mistakes. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to support the Mujahideen, the Contras and Saddam Hussein. The misery they caused was not worth the transient gains we achieved (IMO.)

[Trent 0]

Quote

But I also think you have to learn from your mistakes. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to support the Mujahideen, the Contras and Saddam Hussein. The misery they caused was not worth the transient gains we achieved (IMO.)

In retrospect, perhaps you're right. But what were the other options at the time? Was the UN sitting around, scratching their balls? Probably. Who can really say if we'd be better off today with Afghanistan as a Russian state and Iraq an Iranian state? Maybe so, but I don't think the Iraqis or the Afghanis would have been any better off.

On the topic, I do think it is a mistake to let Syria and Iran get away with supporting terrorism in Iraq. If they want to do that covertly, then we should combat it covertly. What would be another option?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,400]

>But what were the other options at the time? Was the UN sitting around,
>scratching their balls? Probably. Who can really say if we'd be better off
>today with Afghanistan as a Russian state and Iraq an Iranian state?

Are we better off with a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan supporting an offshoot of the Mujahideen, an organization that killed 3000 americans in a terrorist attack? Again, hard to say. You'd be hard-pressed to define 9/11 as a good outcome, I think; I don't think having Afghanistan under USSR control before the USSR collapsed would have resulted in that many US deaths.

>On the topic, I do think it is a mistake to let Syria and Iran get away with
>supporting terrorism in Iraq. If they want to do that covertly, then we
>should combat it covertly. What would be another option?

If we support terrorism in Syria, we have zero moral standing to claim that they should stop supporting terrorism in Iraq. We do ourselves no favors by lowering ourselves to their level, and in the long run that will do immesurable damage to the US's reputation around the world. Keep in mind that most Al Qaeda arrests were made by our allies. Imagine the war on terror without allies.

[crozby 0]

Quote

So we could just as easily blame the Soviets for OBL and the Iranians for SH, right? I mean, they were the initial reasons for these guys to even get started in their respective countries.

No. The CIA trained them and the USA funded them for the purpose of fucking over the Soviet Union and Iran. Neither of them would be where they are today without the backing of the USA.

Quote

Ah, fuck it, let's blame the US... it IS the cool thing to do nowadays.

The CIA trained and funded these guys. Then these guys turned against the USA. Its not the first time either is it? It's pretty difficult to not blame someone in the USA for making the same mistake over and over and over again.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Are we better off with a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan supporting an offshoot of the Mujahideen, an organization that killed 3000 americans in a terrorist attack? Again, hard to say. You'd be hard-pressed to define 9/11 as a good outcome, I think; I don't think having Afghanistan under USSR control before the USSR collapsed would have resulted in that many US deaths.

Did I say that what, in fact, did happen with Afghanistan was better than having Russia control it? No. Did I say September 11th was a "good" outcome, never. Don't try to imply that I'd even think that, please. But would the world have been better had Russia taken over? Maybe the US would have in the long run, but I bet Russia and the Afghanis wouldn't have been. Anyway, it's one of those alternate paths that didn't happen and can't be predicted. Just a question to make you think.

Again, what was the rest of the world doing when Russia and Iran were trying to take over Afghanistand and Iraq?

Quote

If we support terrorism in Syria, we have zero moral standing to claim that they should stop supporting terrorism in Iraq. We do ourselves no favors by lowering ourselves to their level, and in the long run that will do immesurable damage to the US's reputation around the world. Keep in mind that most Al Qaeda arrests were made by our allies. Imagine the war on terror without allies.

Imagine, Syria and Iran as allies... yeah right. Under current leadership... not a chance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. You see covert operations to eliminate terrorist camps and support networks as lowering ourselves to their levels, while I do not. If the host countries won't stop their people from doing this, someone will have to. I also don't think that eliminating terrorist threats in Syria or Iran will hurt our reputation as much as it would hurt Iran and Syria's, since they claim to not support terrorism.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

No. The CIA trained them and the USA funded them for the purpose of fucking over the Soviet Union and Iran.

Both Russia and Iran were invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But lets forget that, right?

Quote

Neither of them would be where they are today without the backing of the USA.

Nor without the actions of Iran and Russia at the outset of the situation. But again, forget that, let's blame only the US.

Quote

The CIA trained and funded these guys. Then these guys turned against the USA. Its not the first time either is it? It's pretty difficult to not blame someone in the USA for making the same mistake over and over and over again.

Please read the posts Bill and I have made prior to your last post. Maybe that will help you out.

Ah, you know what, you can still blame the US. I see you enjoy it too much to see more than that.

Oh, hello again!

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, no US troops would cross into syria or Iran.

That's not what the article itself says:

Quote

The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Ok, read what you posted ... Notice the speculation.
"lead operations in, say, Syria," Not exactly factual, instead the writers speculation.
I don't buy it, because puting any troops in Syria or Iran is a basic declaration of war.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

I could never understand why we banned assasination.
I say bring it back!!!!!

It's a two way street. If we start offing political heads of state and other figures sooner or later we would lose ours too. I personally have no problems with assasinations, but to openly support them Hell No. Keep them under the table. Also this whole we train special groups to carry out assisnations and other special ops does not work. One, who's going to control them, and most importanly what's gonna prevent this person or group from using them for their own political gain. It's way to easy to say that person might be a threat to me so lets off him and his family. It's happened before and will happen again.

[storm1977 0]

Oh, I know it is. But you just hope our intel here at "home" is better than theirs "on the road".

However, insurgents in Iraq are actively assasinating leaders. So, right now the street is one-way. They can and we can not.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhreeZone 15]

If enough proof is there to send in covert teams, work with those countries to eliminate the issue. If the country is proven not to bring criminals to justice then thats all the justification needed by UN standerds and then UN actions can be taken. The last thing that any country wants is to have the entire world looking at them as not supporting the elimination of terrorism. Showing the entire world that X country is ignoring (or supporting) terrorists even with proof handed to them goes a long way to get additional partners engaged in this war. It would be nice to have Russian troops or French troops fully engaged in Iraq too.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[crozby 0]

Quote

Please read the posts Bill and I have made prior to your last post. Maybe that will help you out.

I have. You seem to be implying that the CIA backed these wars to protect the Afghans and Iraqis. Read your history books - that wasn't the reason.

Quote

Ah, you know what, you can still blame the US. I see you enjoy it too much to see more than that.

The current US administration is 100% to blame for the mess in Iraq. They are also to blame for the fact that much of Afghanistan is still a warlord-ridden, heroin producing anarchy.

The only thing I blame the US population for is being too easily led into wars in countries they can't even spell, let alone point to on an atlas.

[billvon 2,400]

>Did I say that what, in fact, did happen with Afghanistan was better
>than having Russia control it? No.

Well, there are a lot of possibilities, but the two we were discussing (I thought) were what actually happened, and what might have happened had we not supported the terrorists that ended up overthrowing the russian occupiers of Afghanistan. If Russia was still in control of Afghanistan it's unlikely they would have attacked the US on 9/11, or allowed a terrorist group to base such an attack there.

Now, maybe the USSR's military might have relocated to Afghanistan, and pulled off a devastating nuclear attack against the US in the late 80's. Unlikely, but possible. One thing we DO know for sure is that whatever decisions we made in the past, and whatever groups/governments/actions we set in motion with our actions, an Afghanistan group killed 3000 americans three years ago. So you have to decide whether that's better than the other possibilities. Maybe it is - but like I said, that's a tough claim to make.

>Imagine, Syria and Iran as allies... yeah right.

Imagine NOT having Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as allies, and having to fight the same battle. That's what we're talking about here.

>I also don't think that eliminating terrorist threats in Syria or Iran will
>hurt our reputation as much as it would hurt Iran and Syria's, since they
>claim to not support terrorism.

Headline:
US OPERATIVES BOMB SCHOOL IN RESIDENTIAL SYRIAN NEIGHBORHOOD
31 Children Among Dead
US Claims School was Training Camp for Insurgents

What do you think that will do to a Pakistani family who are considering turning in an Al Qaeda leader? Think it might change their opinion as to who the bad guys are?

[rhino 0]

Quote

The rest of the world would bash the U.S. for the death and torture of innocent people if found out.

BULLSHIT. The rest of the world isn't bashing the insurgents for killing innocent people in Iraq? Pleaaaassseee......

[rhino 0]

Quote

I'd rather be damned for fighting terrorism, instead of supporting it.

I agree,,, BUT... If we don't change our tactics and use their own people against them we can't win.. We would be like the British during the revolutionary war trying to fight a line battle in the meantime the yanks were shooting them in the ass from the rear and from the sides.

Another example.. I didn't win custody with my ex because I played by the rules and she didn't? You can't fight someone that is without ethics using ethical means in todays day and age. ESPECIALLY where these terrorists are concerned.

[billvon 2,400]

>I agree,,, BUT... If we don't change our tactics and use their own people
>against them we can't win.

If we can't win without becoming terrorists it may not be worth winning.

>Another example.. I didn't win custody with my ex because I played by
>the rules and she didn't? You can't fight someone that is without ethics . .

Unless your ex threatened to kill your son unless you backed down, I suspect she has more ethics than any side in this war. Keep in mind that there are no custody laws (or really any laws) in war.

[crozby 0]

Quote

BUT... If we don't change our tactics and use their own people against them we can't win..

Remember in the film War Games where the WOPR computer eventually works out that the only way to not lose is to not play?

http://161.58.5.90/wargames/not2play.wav

[rhino 0]

Quote

If we can't win without becoming terrorists it may not be worth winning.

I don't believe the blanket term you use "terrorist" is appropriate for taking the fight to them "offensive" instead of staying like we are "Defensive sitting ducks". These militias are resources. They have intelligence we don't. Access to intelligence we can never get access to. They know who belongs and who doesn't. I personally see NOTHING wrong with killing a man in the process of making a bombers vest before he has a chance to use it.

[rhino 0]

Quote

If we can't win without becoming terrorists it may not be worth winning.

That isn't an option. 3,000 people weren't playing in the World Trade Centers. Now they are dead. That is what not playing gets you.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Not exactly factual, instead the writers speculation.
I don't buy it, because puting any troops in Syria or Iran is a basic declaration of war

You're right to be skeptical of simply this writers thoughs... but I do buy it. There are dozens of instances of the US and the UK for that matter putting covert units into foreign countries and stiring up a shit-storm there. Declaration of war or not, such actions are far from unlikly.

Our governments are not affraid use these sort of tactics when the mood takes them... in this instance I think there could be disasterous consequenses.

[mikkey 0]

This will not work and it did not work in e.g. Vietnam. The population is increasingly turning against the coalition due to the collateral damage caused by conventional "warfare". Introducing death squads will only help the insurgents and risks a regional war.

If you look at the re-definition of "torture" - the "bending" of international law and now this: do you want to become what you fight?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[LouDiamond 1]

I follow threads like this(and the article) everyonce in a while and just sit back and shake my head. For starters, there is no way this could possible be explained to an average citizen in a post or even a written paper as one would have to write several books about the size of WAR and PEACE and they would be twice as dry.

What everyone fails to realize is that "Ones man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", it's an age old problem, kind of like a dog chasing it's tail.



If we can't win without becoming terrorists it may not be worth winning***


Take one of the 100 plus definitions of terrorism and you will find that the specific and targeted use of violence against women and children and or non combatants is the primary goal of terrorism in order to create fear within a society.

Before anyone starts pointing at instances, let me say that at no time has the US intentionaly targeted innocents as part of the strategic plan. Granted it has happened, accidents have occured, but I guarentee you in no OPLAN anywhere, will you find innocent civillians being the principal target.

The use of surgical attacks against known terrorists personalities and their infrustructure does not constitute terrorism as they are viable targets.Targeting them and killing them does not make us terrorists any more than it makes someone riding in a plane a skydiver.


What really amazes me is that the US imposes so many rules aginst itself in order to try and keep the world happy that it makes it more difficult to get to the root of the problem. I still cannot believe that educated people in todays society cannot for an instance imagine that other countries(or their own for the non US crowd here) governments routinely engage in some of the practices that many here are upset about.The US (and a few others) really is the only one trying to play by the "rules". Everyone else says they support the rules but in actuality, they don't even attempt to follow them. Try playing a game where only one side follows the rules.

You have what gets reported in the news and in the papers or the sensationalism, which a majority of society and the world see and then you have what goes on behind closed doors, goverment to goverment. You really think Pakistan,saudi arabia or any of those other countries is our friend? Get on a plane and come on over and see for yourself what happens on the ground or I should say in reality. Don't kid yourself,the world is an evil place and there are good people in it,trying to make it better for all but there is no easy solution.


( I just sat here thinking about this post and the futility of it ,before I hit the post button. I don't care to argue this point or the politics involved with it as it isn't going to change some peoples minds no matter what "proof" or points I make. However, in hopes that some people or at least 1 person out there might happen to "get it" I decided against deleting it and moving on to the reason I like this site.....SKYDIVING)

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[rhino 0]

Quote

What really amazes me is that the US imposes so many rules aginst itself in order to try and keep the world happy that it makes it more difficult to get to the root of the problem.

I couldn't have said it better... Whatever happened to "enemy of the state"...

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

In Reply To
If we can't win without becoming terrorists it may not be worth winning.

That isn't an option. 3,000 people weren't playing in the World Trade Centers. Now they are dead. That is what not playing gets you.

and we paid for 8 long years of not playing. We had to take the fight to their back yard.