"Billions against Millions"
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Rumsfelds Memo...</div> <a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm' target='_blank'>USA Today</a> published what they claim to be a memo by secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to the his closest colleagues in the Pentagon.
This is the memo in its entirety:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->October 16, 2003
TO:
Gen. **** Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
<li>We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
<li>USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
<li>USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
<li>With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
<li>Do we need a new organization?
<li>How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
<li>Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
Thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discuss.
This is the memo in its entirety:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->October 16, 2003
TO:
Gen. **** Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
<li>We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
<li>USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
<li>USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
<li>With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
<li>Do we need a new organization?
<li>How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
<li>Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
Thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discuss.
Comments
[just a few small observations]
this is quite worrying. if he doesnt think that the 2 recent wars are 'bold enough' moves. God knows what he has planned next.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He seems to not realise the 'root causes' of the so called terrorists. He writes as if Americas recent actions and the 'new waves' of terrorists are totally unrelated.
Also, that 'US Wars make more terrorists!" is unproven rhetoric. I'm not saying its false, but its not neccesarily true either. I think that destroying terror supporting nations and removing terrorist infastructure will create less terrorists than leaving them in place would have.
Even if my government would oppress me, it would still be MY government. The one our nation has formed and our ancestors selected. I would kill to protect my nation, especially if the attackers occupying and bombing my nation would justify its attack with 'we are removing harmfull terrorists that pose a threa to us. Sorry for inconvenience'
I'm not saying it's justified to attack USA, but many are ready to do it, especially the patriotic sort. Wouldn't you?
I can understand the USG doesn't want to sit around and let possible bad situations escalate but some of the tactics, such as the Private Organization...that just doesn't bode well.
It is going to cost billions to stop these guys, no way around it. That sucks, but that's the whole POINT- they're doing it the way they are doing it because it's easier than building an army and fighting us on our terms. It's difficult to counter. It costs manpower, lives, and money.
It is a problem, certainly. No clear solution- but we can't just ignore it. So what's it gonna take? Even if you reformed all foreign policies to never make mistakes again, never arm any possible future dictators, never supply weapons to anyone, lift any and all sanctions, go isolationist and just ignore the rest of the world so as to give NO ONE any more cause to attack the us...........
we'd still have the problems of yesterday plaguing us.
One thing I do hope though is that Arnold gives what he promised; hydrogen refueling spots every 20 or so miles in california. That will be a HUGE stride towards breaking the oil dependancy and the good ole boys and from there, there's no stopping it. Maybe when we are mostly (we'll probably never be all) self sufficient when it comes to fuel/oil, we'll rethink foreign policy priorities.
It was funny, on colin's show last night dude goes "Wanna know why we haven't gone into north korea even after they're saying they HAVE nukes? Our cars don't run off of spicy cabbage..."\
Essentially this "private" organization to stop the creation of new terrorists is going to be like anti drug ads. "Just say no... (to rising up against america)"
it may not be billions, but it will be just as wasted and pointless.....
Even if my government would oppress me, it would still be MY government. The one our nation has formed and our ancestors selected. I would kill to protect my nation, especially if the attackers occupying and bombing my nation would justify its attack with 'we are removing harmfull terrorists that pose a threa to us. Sorry for inconvenience'
I'm not saying it's justified to attack USA, but many are ready to do it, especially the patriotic sort. Wouldn't you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh. There are 2 forms of patriotism: blind and inspired.
Blind patriotism uses the argument "My country, right or wrong!" Its simplisitc and wrong.
Inspired patriotism uses the argument "To love our country, our country ought to be lovely." This is good. It means protecting a country because of a love for it because of its merits.
Inspired patriotism will kill off blind patriotism. The arab world needs countries it can be proud of. Then it will thank the US instead of hating it. :-)
And no, I wouldn't defend my country if it were run by a mass murdering dictator.
What makes you think they are not proud of their countries? They actually think that their moral values set them on a higher ground compared to us, western people with wrong beliefs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And no, I wouldn't defend my country if it were run by a mass murdering dictator.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't know how the people in Iraq/Afghanistan now feel. You can't say how you would behave. Oh, I forgot who is your president. Sure, you know how it's to have your country run by a mass murdering dictator. Sorry, my mistake <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh yeah.... A dictator who has to have the approval of Congress to do anything, and who was voted in and can be voted out next year if the people see fit. That's <i>totally</i> a dictator.
Please try and keep the anti-america flames to a minimum. I don't think you would like it if I started making fun of your country without any real knowledge of how the government works there.
However what I think Rumsfeld was talking about was taking further steps to seize control of states that are harboring terrorists and providing them with funding, so far the US has stopped this in 2 countries, when there are probably hundreds out there.
Either solution is fairly extreme, I have a feeling the US is headed towards the latter one.
Let's analyze this a little bit. What has happened to American interests since the war on terror started? What buildings have fallen, what embassies have blown up, what non-engaged military units have come under attack? The only American deaths have come as a result of U.S. terrorist... err, sorry... military... activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we should spend even more money? Create even more bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic government that is spending an unprecedented amount of money it doesn't even have? This makes me sick.
If this memo is real, and not a forgery, then I have nothing but more contempt for this administration. They all need to be removed as quickly as possible. Where's the deck of cards for the U.S. Most Wanted? I'd start with Bush senior, then Cheney, then maybe Rumsfeld, then Ashcroft, then Bush juinor, then Powell, then Rice, et al. Clean them all out.
<a href='http://www.dvmx.com/weinberger.html' target='_blank'>What is Happening in America?</a>
PS: This has been happening for about 40 years so we can't just blame the current administartion.
No, but no other administration has wasted the kind of money being wasted right now. No other administration has forced unconstitutional "patriot" acts upon the American people. No other administration has pre-emptively invaded other countries. No other administration has decided to keep running into debt while the economy at home flounders. It is quite clear what their motives are. It has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring American freedoms or ideals. It's all about one simple thing: money. Greed. It abounds. Just follow the money and you'll be able to piece together everything. Of course Rumsfeld wants to spend more. Who's going to get it? The defense industry. Need better tools and better weapons. Billions and billions and billions.... oy vey.
No, but no other administration has wasted the kind of money being wasted right now. No other administration has forced unconstitutional "patriot" acts upon the American people. No other administration has pre-emptively invaded other countries. No other administration has decided to keep running into debt while the economy at home flounders. It is quite clear what their motives are. It has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring American freedoms or ideals. It's all about one simple thing: money. Greed. It abounds. Just follow the money and you'll be able to piece together everything. Of course Rumsfeld wants to spend more. Who's going to get it? The defense industry. Need better tools and better weapons. Billions and billions and billions.... oy vey. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Facts are your friend Evis. :-)
1. "No other adminstration has wated the kind of money..."
Remeber LBJ's Great Society? That was quite a social sink hole. The results? A increase on people on welfare, bigger social payments, and an overall digression on the front of social well being. That was a bigger waste of money than this!
2. "No other adminstration forced 'unconstitutional' patriot acts on the people.'
Actually, Thomas Jefferson made it a crime to speak out against the President. This was overturned about 3 years after it was passed for being unconstitutional. You may think the Patriot act is unconstitutional, but people a lot smarter than you think its just fine. (Supreme Court majority). If they decide it IS unconstitutional, it probably is.
3. "No other administration launched pre-emptive wars."
Ha. Ha. Ha. Panama? Spanish-American war? Mexican American war? World War I (Wilson said the US needed to fight the inveitable war, rather than wait for a stronger enemy). Preemptive wars are nothing new, in America or the world.
4."No other administration has decided to keep running into debt while the economy at home flounders."
Reagan doesn't count? Reagan pushed for lower taxes, higher spending an economy Jimmy Carter crapified. Seemed to work some what ok, considering it sparked the fall of the USSR, a huge boom in the eighties and lit the fuse for the 1990's. But that doesn't count.
You're very cynical about everything. Did it occur to you that some wars need to be fought? If the US needs to fight Islamic Fascism, it should spend whatever it takes or you end up with Vietnam.
EDIT
Also- There is irefutable evidence that Osama was involved with 9/11.
<a href='http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031019/NEWS07/110190304' target='_blank'>http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...EWS07/110190304</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dec. 13, 2001: U.S. Defense Department releases videotape in which Osama bin Laden is shown at a dinner with associates in Afghanistan on Nov. 9, 2001, saying the destruction of the Sept. 11 attacks exceeded even his "optimistic" calculations.
...
Sept. 10, 2003: In the first video image of bin Laden in nearly two years, he is shown walking through rocky terrain with his top aide, Ayman al-Zawahri. Two taped messages accompanied the video — all aired on Al-Jazeera on the eve of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. In one, a voice purporting to be bin Laden's praises the "great damage to the enemy" on Sept. 11 and mentions five hijackers by name. In the other tape, a voice said to be that of al-Zawahri threatens more attacks on Americans and calls on Iraqi guerrillas to "bury" U.S. troops. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That first one seems pretty rock solid. I did see this video for my self (with the translation).
Terrorists want to kill all Americans. What are we supposed to do? Let them kill us because, after all, we deserve it?
<a href='http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031019/NEWS07/110190304' target='_blank'>http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...EWS07/110190304</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Irrefutable? Count the number of "purported," "alleged," "appears," and "attributed" words you see in that link. It is my belief that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. Without derailing this thread, read the following:
<a href='http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html' target='_blank'>Bin Laden: AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW</a>
Why would he have any reason to deny responsibility? The first thing a terrorist organization wants to do is directly claim responsibility. I could go into my beliefs about who was really behind it, but that thread got locked.
and im sick of this terrorists want to kill us so we had better bomb some random nations bulls**t. it just goes to show that you dont really need a reason to go to war, all you have to do is tell the people someone is trying to kill them and they will cower around their corrupt government for protection, while said government bombs whoever is the 'evil nation of the week'.
Remeber LBJ's Great Society? That was quite a social sink hole. The results? A increase on people on welfare, bigger social payments, and an overall digression on the front of social well being. That was a bigger waste of money than this!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, since it was done to help people in this country, rather than kill them in others, it is complettely different.
Am I the only person who came away from reading the memo thinking that it says absolutely nothing of great importance?
Remeber LBJ's Great Society? That was quite a social sink hole. The results? A increase on people on welfare, bigger social payments, and an overall digression on the front of social well being. That was a bigger waste of money than this!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, since it was done to help people in this country, rather than kill them in others, it is complettely different.
Am I the only person who came away from reading the memo thinking that it says absolutely nothing of great importance? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A waste of money is a waste of money. My point was the great society didn't help anyone. It just continued the downward spiral of an attempted nanny state.
Evis: I'm sure the 'Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum' is as rock solid as publications such as the New York Times, CNN, ABC News, etc. If you're trying to prove a conspiracy theory, its best not to prove them by linking to a conspiracy theory website.
I also found the memo to be rather unimportant as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That hardly matters as the intent was fundamentally different. The sinking of tons of cash into a war is very different from sinking tons of cash into a system designed to help people.
Let's analyze this a little bit. What has happened to American interests since the war on terror started? What buildings have fallen, what embassies have blown up, what non-engaged military units have come under attack? The only American deaths have come as a result of U.S. terrorist... err, sorry... military... activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we should spend even more money? Create even more bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic government that is spending an unprecedented amount of money it doesn't even have? This makes me sick.
If this memo is real, and not a forgery, then I have nothing but more contempt for this administration. They all need to be removed as quickly as possible. Where's the deck of cards for the U.S. Most Wanted? I'd start with Bush senior, then Cheney, then maybe Rumsfeld, then Ashcroft, then Bush juinor, then Powell, then Rice, et al. Clean them all out.
<a href='http://www.dvmx.com/weinberger.html' target='_blank'>What is Happening in America?</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, we have pretty solid proof that Osama and his "gang" were behind 9/11...poke around. Next, if you want to blame anyone for 9/11 blame the Clinton administration, they handed this mess of to Bush, they ignored warning signs, to caught up in scadle to do anything right. Also by "bolder actions" I hope they mean invadeing Saudia Araba, this back stabing country is a disgrace of an ally. Only "cracking down" on terror when they get attacked themselves, and by cracking down I mean paying off the terrorists.
And what do you mean <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When it's quite clear that "terrorists" have done absolutely nothing against the U.S. mainland since the "war on terror"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What 9/11 wasn't enough? Let me point out that the last time America was attacked, an atomic bomb was droped on Japan. I don't think we have seen anything yet.
darnit, what is with this conservative **** that all Bush's problems were really Clinton's fault? Take some responsibility when you screw up, christ.
Did I say all? I only said 9/11, which he can be blamed for in ways. The blame for 9/11 lies mostly with the terrorists.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the first link I found on Google after a quick search, having recalled that interview. The site housing the interview, which originally appeared in a Pakistani newspaper, is just one of many that <b>duplicated it</b>. Here is a site that deals purely with the translation of the original:
<a href='http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/ngo-list/2001-October/001246.html' target='_blank'>BBC Translation of USAMA BIN LADEN Interview</a>
Do a Google search on "UMMAT Usama Bin Laden interview" and pick any site you prefer. Refuting sources, and making a point around them, is against forum rules. Read #5. Then read the interview completely. Now consider it against your "purported" statements again. The New York Times would never post such an interview because it's owned by a Jew.
Okay people... take a look at what has happened to the American public since 9/11. What have these terrorist groups done to us? Please tell me what justification we have for continued military efforts. If suspicion of desired aggression against the U.S. is all that's needed to destroy entire countries, then there is essentially no end in sight. It's like the movie Minority Report. Don't actually do something, but just think about it, and you're put in jail. Except in this case, the U.S. is going to come and kill you, and thousands of innocent people along the way, all the while completely overthrowing your country. Doesn't sound very logical to me. You simply can't wipe away everyone on the planet that thinks about exacting revenge. Revenge begets revenge and pretty soon the U.S. vs Muslim world is just the same as Israel vs Palestine. How many must die along the way?
Take a look at what most Muslim extremists are really angry about... it's Israel and our hypocritical stance with their "state terrorism." Then realize what Israel is trying to do to ensure victory against their enemies. They need a friend more than anyone else. They've got one in the U.S., and now they've actually got the U.S. willing to fight the wars it cannot. Then realize how much <a href='http://www.toluislam.com/pub_online/previous_issues/may2001/jewishmedia.htm' target='_blank'>Jewish influence and media ownership</a> there is here in the U.S., all the way to the very top. Just do a Google search on Jewish media ownership and you might be surprised at just how much they are in control of what you read and view every day.
Think for a second, that's all I ask. Stop accepting what is fed to you and realize who is actually doing the feeding. Then understand their true intentions and interests. Now understand why people are pushing hard to relax FCC rules on media ownership. Very scary stuff. It's not hard to start connecting dots.
Only if you believe Islamic terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda, had anything to do with 9/11. There are many people who do not believe Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, and I am one of them. The second part of your statement is really quite scary to me. Especially since we have no clear-cut enemy we're going after. Please, tell me... when will all of this stop? How will we ever know when the "war on terror" has been won? I'm afraid the answer is far too frightening to speak.
Is <a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/969759.asp' target='_blank'>this</a> enough proof that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11? A confession from #2?
Also, would you mind stopping with the "Oh, America is a dark and dangerous place and I weep in terror at where this will all end!". Its overly dramatic and adds nothing to the discussion.
Is <a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/969759.asp' target='_blank'>this</a> enough proof that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11? A confession from #2?
Also, would you mind stopping with the "Oh, America is a dark and dangerous place and I weep in terror at where this will all end!". Its overly dramatic and adds nothing to the discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He makes a good point Jammer. When exactly will we have won this "War on Terror"? Or is it just another "War on Drugs"?
That reminds me of this quote, I can't remember who siad it though, some comedy scit somewhre:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd never want to fight a war on drugs, its hard enough going to school on drugs<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is <a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/969759.asp' target='_blank'>this</a> enough proof that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11? A confession from #2?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004355.html' target='_blank'>Nope</a>. There are reports that #2 was <a href='http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html' target='_blank'>killed during a raid in Pakistan last year</a>. Dead men do not make for very good confessions, don't you think? <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,906384,00.html' target='_blank'>Here.</a> And <a href='http://www.complete911timeline.org/main/essayksmcapture.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> Ooh, <a href='http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2449' target='_blank'>here's another!</a> <a href='http://myweb.thump.net/104/findthemastermind.htm' target='_blank'>I can keep going...</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, would you mind stopping with the "Oh, America is a dark and dangerous place and I weep in terror at where this will all end!". Its overly dramatic and adds nothing to the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, if you wouldn't mind stopping with the incredibly useless flamebaits. I don't think I've ever seen a post from you that wasn't flame material. Sorry if I'm over dramatic. Sometimes you need to be in order to garner attention. I've been around this planet much longer than you have. When you reach 30 perhaps you too will have seen enough of the world to know what's really going on. I'm sorry if it's not bright and chipper and "everything is okie-dokie with the world!" because frankly, it isn't. Americans such as yourself like to think it is, but they too are living in a dream world that isn't shared by many others in this world. And you know what they say... if you don't like it, don't read it.
If you're going to quote forum rules I strongly suggest you re-read rules 1-4
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right.
2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side.
3.: Try to stay rational.
4.: Do not expect ego strokes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not everyone here agrees with you and you aren't going to convince them all to believe you. Also, there are many contributers here who are much younger than both of us and yet they continue to make extremely valuable posts. There is a trend growing in the discussion forum and if we want it to continue without hinderance we'd better start policing ourselves. Cool down. Nothing we post here is going to have direct effect on policy.
Remember that if you want people to respect your opinion, you'll have to respect theirs.
Duty bound to safeguard history, I step forth.
Panama I know little about. Spanish-American occured after an American naval ship was destroyed in a Cuban port. That was the trigger for the conflict; it wasn't pre-emptive. Neither was WWI. The US would never have entered into the war if the Germans hadn't restarted unrestricted submarine warfare. It was the sinking of US shipping that brought the US into the war, nothing to do with pre-emption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, that 'US Wars make more terrorists!" is unproven rhetoric. I'm not saying its false, but its not neccesarily true either. I think that destroying terror supporting nations and removing terrorist infastructure will create less terrorists than leaving them in place would have.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unproven? Perhaps. But if the memo is to be believed, Rumsfeld reckons that the current stratagy isn't working. "Destroying terrorist infrastructure"? This ain't C&C Generals. Terrorist groups rarely have any sort of infrastructure, and most of that is very small scale. Terrorists rely on blending into societies, striking from the shadows and above all not drawing attention to themselves. Governments will rarely openly or covertly support terrorism; the vast majority of the funding and support for Al Quaeda for example, comes from private buisnessmen. The same goes for virtually any terrorist organisation, from Hamas to the IRA. Thus, attacking countries achieves a number of things:
1. Cutting off a fairly insignificant portion of terrorist funds. Terrorist groups will hardly notice the drop in funds, but even then, that leads to point 2:
2. Increased support for terrorist groups from perviously neutral or moderate people. Invading a Muslim nation and occupying it is one of the best ways to push moderate muslims into fundamentalists. The rise in fundamentalist rhetoric in Saudia Arabia and Iran is one example of this.
3. Increased potential recruits for terrorist groups. People harmed by the war turn to a terrorist group for revenge, or undertake revenge by themselves. Look at the Palistinian-Israeli fighting, or the bombings in Iraq.
4. Destroys a potential base for terrorists. This is possibly the most adventageous result, but even it is flawed. Terrorists will move out of a country if it is attacked and simply set up shop elsewhere. Note that most terrorist groups exist without the government of the country they are in knowing. Does this mean that government is doing something wrong? No. It's quite possible that terrorist cells exist in the US, it's just the US government doesn't know about it.
If, as you believe Jammer, numbers of terrorists are decreasing thanks to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, why did the Bali bombings occur months after Afghanistan was invaded and occupied? Why do bombings continue in Iraq? Why does the US government continually issue "warnings" of possible terrorist atacks? And finally, if these wars were working, why the heck is Rumsfeld saying "What we're doing ain't working boys"?