Why the pessimism?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course you can... to deal with with the rebels.

Given that the US and international community never recognized the Taliban as the government, they were always rebels-in short, we went to fight the Taliban and AQ-we are still fighting the Taliban and AQ. same war.

Is Israel currently in a war against Hamas?

If you ask the Israelis, yes. BUt of course, still a strawman.

Exactly... it was the aftermath of the war and became a seperate conflict entirely. If this erupts into full fledged warfare, it'll be another conflict, not Gulf War II.

So then we are still at war in Iraq. Good to see you agree.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanS

The problem is that you equate working through the UN as multilateral and working through groups of allies as unilateral. This is an unrealistic view. You're subordinating your perception of reality to an attempt to spin together a higher law of nations.

Actually, Dan, this issue of "unilateralism" will probably be a major issue the upcoming election. Kerry seems to denigrate anything Bush does, even if it with a coalition of 40 plus nations, as unilateral, while defending Clinton's intervention into Kosovo, which had neither the backing of Congress or the United Nations, and criticizing Bush's lack of unilateral intervention into Haiti.

In terms of working through Congress and the United Nations, I have never seen anything in my life that it was remotely like Bush and Blair's efforts to achieve a consensus at the United Nations to do something effective about Saddam Hussein. That Bush and Blair did not succeed in the end does not mean that their effort was not sincere.

During the Cold War, the United Nations was rendered ineffective by having a veto in each warring camp. In the post-Cold War world, one would have hoped that United Nations could be ineffective organization to unite the world in a common purpose and confront terrorism and genocidal dictators. But what I have we found? We have found a Europe and particularly a France that views itself as a check on American power as if United States were the problem and not the solution.

Thus we now face a Europe that actively opposes American power and operates inexorably to obstruct American foreign-policy. To the extent that we agree to operate within the framework of the United Nations, we fall directly into the European's trap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given that the US and international community never recognized the Taliban as the government, they were always rebels

So was the PRC a rebel group until the 70s?

still a strawman

No, a natural analogy.

So then we are still at war in Iraq. Good to see you agree.

No, not yet. We could get involved in another Iraqi war in the future. But as for now, the war is over. Small bands of roving guerillas and rebels do not a war make. When they become an organized group under a heirchical leadership, and actually engage in warfare rather than terrorism, then talk to me again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So was the PRC a rebel group until the 70s?

Only the US stood in the way of recognizing Commusnit China as the government-almost everyone else had moved on. As compared to the fact only 3 states ever recognized the Taliban. Add to that the fact the civil war was ongoing in Afghanistan-add to that the US is still fighting the Taliban and AQ, the people we went there to fight.

No, a natural analogy.

Only for someone looking for strawmen.

No, not yet. We could get involved in another Iraqi war in the future. But as for now, the war is over. Small bands of roving guerillas and rebels do not a war make. When they become an organized group under a heirchical leadership, and actually engage in warfare rather than terrorism, then talk to me again.

GIve me a break. So 9 months after the insurgency begun-it still is not an independent conflict? I am sorry, this is to absurd to argue..you are wrong, that simple. Last time I looked the won the Spanish American war in 1898-and the Philipinno insurgency begun in 1899.... But in planet Imran, it takes what to qualify as a new conflict?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Doing 95% ourselves and 4% one partner and 1% 29 other partners is working through allies? Come on, this Coalition of the Willing is BS and you know it. 90% of them are names on a peice of paper contributing nothing substantial.

Would a UN force really be all that different? Whose troops do you think would do 90% of the dirty work?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So 9 months after the insurgency begun-it still is not an independent conflict? I am sorry, this is to absurd to argue..you are wrong, that simple. Last time I looked the won the Spanish American war in 1898-and the Philipinno insurgency begun in 1899.... But in planet Imran, it takes what to qualify as a new conflict?

An actual conflict between two declarable sides (at least). Who is the US fighting a war against? If you can't even really name the other side, it isn't a war. It's just guerrila terrorism, kind of like the ETA in Spain.

The Iraq war was over when the opposing side fell.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Would a UN force really be all that different? Whose troops do you think would do 90% of the dirty work?

IIRC back in '90 America sent about half of the troops.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

An actual conflict between two declarable sides (at least). Who is the US fighting a war against? If you can't even really name the other side, it isn't a war. It's just guerrila terrorism, kind of like the ETA in Spain.

The Iraq war was over when the opposing side fell.

GePap is right, Imran. This particular war will only be won when a stable and democratic regime has been established. If the objectives were only military, then America should leave right now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap is right, Imran. This particular war will only be won when a stable and democratic regime has been established. If the objectives were only military, then America should leave right now.

Every war is only military objectives (that's why they call it a 'war'). The aftermath is just that! WW2 did not last until 1947 because we didn't pull out West Germany until that time. It ended in 1945 when the enemy surrendered. Guerrila rebels fighting against government forces did not mean the war contined.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Every war is only military objectives (that's why they call it a 'war'). The aftermath is just that! WW2 did not last until 1947 because we didn't pull out West Germany until that time. It ended in 1945 when the enemy surrendered. Guerrila rebels fighting against government forces did not mean the war contined.

In this case, where the war was explicitly sold with a moral argument in it, though, I would argue that separating military objectives from 'moral' objectives would be fallacious at best.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Every war is only military objectives (that's why they call it a 'war').

So, what are the military objectives in the war against 'terror'?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are talking about the war against terror (which isn't really a war). We are talking about the war against Iraq.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In this case, where the war was explicitly sold with a moral argument in it, though, I would argue that separating military objectives from 'moral' objectives would be fallacious at best.

It's also what you have to do. Wars aren't won when their 'moral' objectives are achieved. Only when military ones are.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm just spamming this thread to bookmark it and easily find it in "My Threads". I might write something on the topic later.

[Alexander's Horse]

The coalition forces are just flotsam on the Tigris. Here today, gone tommorrow.

Then it will be business as usual again.