Can America finish terrorism alone ?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
and contrary to what DanS said, the US has no intention of toppling the dictatorship there. she has no interest in doing it. they dont care if you die by the thousands due to pakistani terrorism, unless, of course, you make them care.

Stop trolling you hairy hoplite. Of course the US cares and we'd like to see all terrorism cease we just helped Pakistan out because they agreed to give up the Taliban if we did so.

[Arrian]

Damnit, Oerdin, I put him on ignore for a reason.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Naw, he doesn't need to be ignored. He does need to be corrected every now and then though.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Can America finish terrorism alone ?

Originally posted by aneeshm
Watching the news today , I just had to post this .

How many here actually believe that America can go against terrorists alone ?

LOTM - no of course we cant go it alone. WE are cooperting with nations around the world in the struggle against terrorism.


How many people think that war after war after war is the solution to the terrorism menace .



LOTM - The war against the Taliban was certainly necessary and has deprived AQ of its most important base. Whether the war on iraq helped is a matter of dispute - realistically its too soon to say. Will there be any more conventional wars against states? I hope not, but there may be situations where it will become necessary.

Living in India , terrorism is nothing new . You felt it two years ago . I knew it from birth . On the 25th of August , two blasts killed more than a hundred people in the city of Mumbai . On the 7th of Sept. , a car bomb killed seven people in Srinagar . Most people here must not even have heard of this .

LOTM - I heard about terrorism directed against India before 9/11, but I have certainly paid much closer attention since 9/11. The taliban emerged out of Pakistani Jihadi groups, the same ones that have attacked India (and also attacked Christians, Shiites, and others in Pakistan) Your war IS our war, to a very great extent.


Such things keep happening , and no-one pays any attention . Do the American people seriously think they can finish terrorists just by army operations wherever and whenever they so choose ?

LOTM - We need much more than army operations. We need police operations, intel, cutting off of funds to terrorist - and at the same time we need to transform the muslim world, to make it less amenbale to terrorism.


We learnt long ago that you cannot do it that way . We are still trying , though , and without much success .


LOTM - India has never so far as I know, attacked the terrorist bases in Pakistan. The only conventional fighting India has done in the last 30 years against Pakistan has been along the LOC in Kashmir - the terrorist bases are much deeper within Pakistan. Given the balance of power in the region it would have been too dangerous. At some point the US needs to press Pakistan to eliminate the domestic Jihadi groups - with the threat that we will lean toward India and alter the balance if that is not done. For now we are busy elsewhere, and are willing to accept such cooperation as we have gotten from Pakistan.

In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone . You cannot enlist support by invading anyone . Only through a global consensus of all affected nations , not a Coalition of the Willing (or America's puppets) , can this be contained . And the faster Americans realize this , the better for them and the lives of theis troops .

LOTM - we will use as wide a consensus as possible. But when we must move with a narrower coalition we will.


Again , I ask , how many here feel America can do this alone ?

No one does, and I dont think there is anyplace in the world now where America is acting alone.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Food , we have no problems except in distribution (we , in fact , have the largest stored stocks in the world of rice and wheat) .

Well WE have the world's biggest stock of burger patties and fried chicken! If you had stocks of fries and biscuits we could do some business.

[GePap]

Europeans take terrorism very seriously. The first terrorist attack in te US was in 1993: almost all European contries by then had seen decades of terrorist acts: the French waged a very brutal war in Ageria, the Spaniards have the Basques, the UK North Ireland, Germany, italy and Greece left-wing groups. Compare secutiry at a European airport to that in the US..big difference. 9/11 did not make the us all of a sudden experts on terrorism..t did scare the utter bejesus out of Americans because of the unprecedented scope of the attack.

No state can end terrorism, all states could not end terrorism..a war on terrorism is like a war on war: terrorism is a political phenomenon, and any time in which you have one side or groups that whishes to transform the political landscape and is too weak to wage conventional war to do it we will have terrorism. Even if the US broke Al Qaeda and militant Islam ended, terrorism would continue. Reember the Tamil tigers and FARC are two of the largest terrorist orgs in the world and they have 0 to do with militant Islam.

The point is that each individual political problem need s to be solved in whicever ways are best, and that brings about the specific campaign of terrorism.

[Dr Strangelove]

You know, maybe we need a man like Genghis Khan right now!

[GePap]

Hardly...he wouldn't care much abount simple brigands having some "fun".

[Dr Strangelove]

He would if they tried to blow up Xanadu!

[St Leo]

That was Kublai Khan.

Genghiz is the dude who murdered everyone in Bukhara and stacked their skulls outsided the city because they took a bit long in surrendering.

[Ted Striker]

USA never said it was going to do it either alone or by military means only.

We will win this if it takes the next 100 years.

paiktis is a piece of sh1t by the way. Go shave your back you fuc king p ussy ass b1tch.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
We will win this if it takes the next 100 years.

If we are still fighting this in 100 years, then something went horrbily wrong somewhere.

The point is a "war on terrorism" is unwinnable (like a "war on war"). Now, a "war on Al qaeda", that we can win.

[Ted Striker]

I'm talking about Al Queda

And whatever dumbass organization decides the want to step up and get their asses kicked.

[Ted Striker]

Abu Sayeff is also on the list

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by St Leo
That was Kublai Khan.

Genghiz is the dude who murdered everyone in Bukhara and stacked their skulls outsided the city because they took a bit long in surrendering.

Sounds like a plan to me.