|
|
President Karzai said he was pleased with the American military review of strategy, which focused on militant activity in the area. President Obama is planning on sending 4,000 troops to train Afghan security forces. Do you think this is wise? Is it a preliminary to declaring war? Or is it just what it is, a training mission? Is this a plan to the best way to reach bin Laden, as he is known to be hiding in the Afghan mountainous region?
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(861 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 20, 2009 10:49 PM
|
Rapid Creek,
"Laws" were also pretty much by definition written for and applied to "legal combatants." Heard those terms before?
Pirates? Point well taken. Who's the pirate? Now THERE'S the rub! Bin Laden or Bush/Cheney? Your answer betrays EVERYTHING!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(860 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 20, 2009 10:39 PM
|
Why I read the internets,
This post. Good stuff, as always.
Keep it up.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(858 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 10:13 PM
|
> The price of the bribe can only go up from here.
I'm sure that's come up in the White House's
deliberations......anything that would affect
appearences would probably come up.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,016
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(857 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 9:59 PM
|
|
The price of the bribe can only go up from here.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(856 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 9:38 PM
|
> > I always assumed it meant ethnic Arabs
> > associated with al-Qaida but if it turned
> > out that they were once associated and
> > not so much interested in getting to us
> > anymore than maybe we might be
> > able to wind this down ahead of the General's
> > schedules who seem most enthusiastic about
> > leaving with much grayer hair when
> > interviewed on it.
>
> There is always a problem with this blur of
> definitions of terrorists. That is why a US District
> Attorney came up with the name al-Qaida. It worked
> for bin Laden who needed someone to follow him, but
> that franchise has dried up. Now there are pockets
> of terrorists, some Arab some not, which are just as
> capable of instilling havoc. But, I shouldn't think
> we are exempt. The bombings in Mumbai were a good
> example. The Lashkar-i-Taibar were the perpetrators,
> who actually attacked from multiple countries.
> Afghanistan is about the Taliban now and its about
> Pakistan. Its a real puzzle.
Well if we could bribe them as easy as "al-Qaida in
Iraq" then it wouldn't be nearly as puzzling to me
when it comes to bribing them not to attack us
from any neo-Taliban run country. (The original
"Taliban" were madrassa students).
Bribing any would be saboteurs of any would be
pipeline from the Caspian to the Arabian sea isn't
puzzling either but I wouldn't care for it much even
if it were passed off as a strategic endeavor.
GZ is certainly right in that what we're doing now
is not at all cost effective
--
Edited by JimEarl at 11/20/2009 7:12 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
20,760
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(855 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 9:05 PM
|
> >
> > Call the pirates. There are no laws for
> pirates, you
> > can do what you want with them.
>
> I don't recall pirates even being mentioned in the
> conventions, lol.
Yeah see? All laws pertaining to them go back to 18th century, and those were pretty much do what you want. There was an appeal to Bush to call what we now call terrorists the name of pirates for that exact reason. Wasn't macho enough for W. Actually they fit really well in the definition of pirate. They are land raiders. As such, you can shoot them on sight.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(854 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:59 PM
|
>
> Call the pirates. There are no laws for pirates, you
> can do what you want with them.
I don't recall pirates even being mentioned in the
conventions, lol.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,760
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(853 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:52 PM
|
> >
> > We used to solve this problem with a bullet.
> >
>
> If they didn't potentially have information of
> value.
> That's still permissible for unmarked combatants in
> the Geneva conventions (after a field hearing with
> no description of details or requirements).
>
> Whatever is not permissable for "unmarked
> combatants" I couldn't find right away but I
> found quite a lot on civilians and POWs right away.
> Unmarked combatants are denied their status in
> the conventions.
>
> The conventions were written by colonial powers.
Call the pirates. There are no laws for pirates, you can do what you want with them.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(852 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:49 PM
|
>
> We used to solve this problem with a bullet.
>
If they didn't potentially have information of value.
That's still permissible for unmarked combatants in
the Geneva conventions (after a field hearing with
no description of details or requirements).
Whatever is not permissable for "unmarked
combatants" I couldn't find right away but I
found quite a lot on civilians and POWs right away.
Unmarked combatants are denied their status in
the conventions.
The conventions were written by colonial powers.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,760
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(851 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:49 PM
|
> I always assumed it meant ethnic Arabs associated
> with al-Qaida but if it turned out that they were
> once associated and not so much interested in
> getting to us anymore than maybe we might be
> able to wind this down ahead of the General's
> schedules who seem most enthusiastic about
> leaving with much grayer hair when interviewed
> on it.
There is always a problem with this blur of definitions of terrorists. That is why a US District Attorney came up with the name al-Qaida. It worked for bin Laden who needed someone to follow him, but that franchise has dried up. Now there are pockets of terrorists, some Arab some not, which are just as capable of instilling havoc. But, I shouldn't think we are exempt. The bombings in Mumbai were a good example. The Lashkar-i-Taibar were the perpetrators, who actually attacked from multiple countries. Afghanistan is about the Taliban now and its about Pakistan. Its a real puzzle.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(850 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:37 PM
|
>
> Rounding up a few terrorists should never have been
> justification for invading and occupying sovereign
> nations.
I suppose so and ex CIA spooks such as Michael Scheuer
always blamed the turning Afghanistan over to
Rumsfeld and the military for whatever al-Qaida
operatives escaped into Pakistan's NW territories
at that time.
I just think that any pipeline that might be conceived
to go from the Caspian region across any Pashtun
enclave to the Arabian Sea wouldn't be worth it to
anyone in the oil business strictly due to a sabotage
vulnerability risk.
But that would explain NATO's willingness to go
along with this particular coalition of the willing
without the free F-16s in return I suppose.
Us taxpayers could always pitch in and bribe any
would be oil pipeline saboteurs as in Iraq.
|
|
|
Posts:
967
Registered:
9/16/09
|
|
(849 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM
|
> Agreed, RC.
>
> The whole GWOT is a huge hoax that could've been
> solved by a few smart people. We used to solve this
> problem rationally with little fanfare in federal
> court, just as other countries have done.
We used to solve this problem with a bullet.
>
> Rounding up a few terrorists should never have been
> justification for invading and occupying sovereign
> nations.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,995
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(848 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:18 PM
|
Agreed, RC.
The whole GWOT is a huge hoax that could've been solved by a few smart people. We used to solve this problem rationally with little fanfare in federal court, just as other countries have done.
Rounding up a few terrorists should never have been justification for invading and occupying sovereign nations.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(847 of 861)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:08 PM
|
>
>
> al-Qaida is a term originated by us, and should not
> be considered as some organized group like the
> Rotary. Its become a brand name, like McDonalds, and
> most of the franchises have dried up. I only mention
> this by way of explaining that you could circle spots
> on a map and still not see that franchise if you got
> there, but that has little to do with terrorists --
> they probably will be there.
I always assumed it meant ethnic Arabs associated
with al-Qaida but if it turned out that they were
once associated and not so much interested in
getting to us anymore than maybe we might be
able to wind this down ahead of the General's
schedules who seem most enthusiastic about
leaving with much grayer hair when interviewed
on it.
|
|
|
|
|
