A War We Just Might Win

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

It's a catch 22. While we are fighting in Iraq we should be putting as much pressure on SA to get them to change. I am not privy to the diplomacy so I don't know what is going on there.

Wow, that's a cop-out! You're just going to shrug your shoulders about why the Bush Administration doesn't have any comprehensive strategy to deal with the fact that it was Saudi nationals who flew the planes, who are infiltrating and fighting our troops in Iraq and are funding the schools in Pakistan??? We need to be asking the right questions, Gary! We need to holding people's fight to the fire.

I am saying that I don't know what diplomacy is going on behind the scene and you don't either. What do you want to do, invade SA?

If we put an embargo on trade with them - that would probably have an effect. Of course the real worry there is that the Saudis would give us the finger, turn around and sell their oil exclusively to China and Russia. Again economics before security - clearly someone decided that 'a little terrorism' is acceptable in order to preserve that diplomatic/economic relationship.

So as long as we can target primitive tribal/peasant regimes - we create the impression of actually doing something.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bin Ladin literally declaired war on us. Following that were the bombings in Africa, the first World Trade Center bombing and the USS Cole. I agree that SA is a big part of the problem but we have the problem of needing them for the oil. If we want to go back to the stone age and just forget about all our technology then we have to play with that devil. It's just a reality of our world, we need the oil. I don't think the government of SA is directly responsible for the support but a lot of the religious leaders in that country are. There is no one solution to this problem short of declairing war on any government that allows their religious leaders to recrute and fund the terrorists. In the mean time we need to confront the terrorists where they are. Right now they are in Iraq and Afganistan. When we kick them out of those countries then we need to move on to wherever they move to.

But if our long-term strategy is to put economics before security then we're not going to achieve a whole lot. Pretty big flaw in the strategy if you ask me.

It's a catch 22. While we are fighting in Iraq we should be putting as much pressure on SA to get them to change. I am not privy to the diplomacy so I don't know what is going on there.

Wow, that's a cop-out! You're just going to shrug your shoulders about why the Bush Administration doesn't have any comprehensive strategy to deal with the fact that it was Saudi nationals who flew the planes, who are infiltrating and fighting our troops in Iraq and are funding the schools in Pakistan??? We need to be asking the right questions, Gary! We need to holding people's fight to the fire.

I am saying that I don't know what diplomacy is going on behind the scene and you don't either. What do you want to do, invade SA?

Invading them would at least be consistent with Bush's declaration that anyone harboring terrorists would be our enemy.

[GaryC 7]

If we put an embargo on trade with them - that would probably have an effect. Of course the real worry there is that the Saudis would give us the finger, turn around and sell their oil exclusively to China and Russia. Again economics before security - clearly someone decided that 'a little terrorism' is acceptable in order to preserve that diplomatic/economic relationship.

So as long as we can target primitive tribal/peasant regimes - we create the impression of actually doing something.

We could stop buying our oil from them but we would fold before they would. I know a lot of you (not implying you #6) think that our national interest in oil is some sort of a evil thing. It's not, just the reality of the world today. If we had a way to do without oil alltogether then we could just pack our tents up and leave them to it. But that is just wishful thinking. Until we can tell them to keep their oil it is in our security interests to maintian good relations with them.

SA is more friendly to us than most ME countries though. They do allow us to use their bases and we have an open dialog with them. I am sure that there is presure going on behind the public forums about what some of the religious leaders from there are doing.

Edited July 31, 2007 by GaryC

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come.

let's not lay the blame on this on the us military. feel free to fire at the administration, but the military goes where they are told.

[MelindaandTarek 0]

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come.

let's not lay the blame on this on the us military. feel free to fire at the administration, but the military goes where they are told.

well said.

[Jamie76 0]

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come.

let's not lay the blame on this on the us military. feel free to fire at the administration, but the military goes where they are told.

It was a blunder by the administration militarily

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come.

let's not lay the blame on this on the us military. feel free to fire at the administration, but the military goes where they are told.

It was a blunder by the administration militarily

That was a given. It's funny ...as I recall Clinton's critics were quite apt at pointing out the military blunders under his administration but get defensive when someone tries to point them out under Bush as if it's an attack on the military personnel.

[Ivanovo 0]

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come.

let's not lay the blame on this on the us military. feel free to fire at the administration, but the military goes where they are told.

It was a blunder by the administration militarily

That was a given. It's funny ...as I recall Clinton's critics were quite apt at pointing out the military blunders under his administration but get defensive when someone tries to point them out under Bush as if it's an attack on the military personnel.

Actually as I recall, Clinton's critics were also quite apt at pointing out his dodging of the draft to avoid service in Nam.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think this "war" and the elimination of Saddam Hussein will be one of the US military's biggest blunders for years to come.

let's not lay the blame on this on the us military. feel free to fire at the administration, but the military goes where they are told.

It was a blunder by the administration militarily

That was a given. It's funny ...as I recall Clinton's critics were quite apt at pointing out the military blunders under his administration but get defensive when someone tries to point them out under Bush as if it's an attack on the military personnel.

Actually as I recall, Clinton's critics were also quite apt at pointing out his dodging of the draft to avoid service in Nam.

Or that Bush never actually 'served' by virtue of having an influential dad. Kerry (for all his faults) did serve and fight - but got swift-boated and his service denigrated. What does this suggest - that its ok to trash someone's military service if they're standing in your way in an election? Bad decision all round IMO.