Is Jaw Jaw better than War War ?

[EternalOptimist]

Alf
The IRA had stated political aims and could therefore be negotiated with. What are the aims of AQ and are they seperate in your mind from Hamas and Hezbolla.

Mr Troll
There have been very few wars of anhiallation in history and, as AtW says, they mostly fail anyway. 'Total War' has bugger all to do with eliminating a civilian population, Total warfare means that all of the countries resources are geared to the conflict i.e. you dont build cars any more you only build tanks.

fyi The UK went straight into total war mode in september 1939, the Germans in 1943. The Reich was still producing volkswagens till the middle of 1943.

[Phoenix]

Your blaming WW2 on the British Car Industry???

[EternalOptimist]

I've told you once

[AlfredJPruffock]

Alf
What are the aims of AQ and are they seperate in your mind from Hamas and Hezbolla.

A good question,as I recall one of the chief demands of Al Queda was the removal of the US Millitary bases from Saudia Arabia.

This demand was granted by the US administration.


Al Queda are not equiviocal to Hezbollah, a Shia Millita group whose origins lay in the Lebenase Israel conflict and have since exapnded their role as an arm of the government and certain local government functions.

[Troll]

Alf
The IRA had stated political aims and could therefore be negotiated with. What are the aims of AQ and are they seperate in your mind from Hamas and Hezbolla.

Mr Troll
There have been very few wars of anhiallation in history and, as AtW says, they mostly fail anyway. 'Total War' has bugger all to do with eliminating a civilian population, Total warfare means that all of the countries resources are geared to the conflict i.e. you dont build cars any more you only build tanks.

fyi The UK went straight into total war mode in september 1939, the Germans in 1943. The Reich was still producing volkswagens till the middle of 1943.

The Islamists also have stated positions - the destruction of Israel and recapture of Spain plus the infidels banished form the Middle East. What negotiating do you imagine is possible... withdraw from Middle East in return from their leaving Spain? What will your negotiating position be?

If you totally annihilate your enemy - troops and civilians there is no possibility of a comeback, Genghis Khan practiced this to great effect, Alexander would allow rule by proxy on conquered lands but any dissent then all would be put to the sword..ditto for the Romans
Does anyone (besides the obvious) still bother about the Armenian genocide? If all the Jewish population had perished during WW2 would it now be such a big deal? Or is it that the survivors make sure the issue is kept alive, no one seems to care too much about the gypsies sent to the gas chambers

Total war only started after London was bombed, prior to that only military installations were targeted by both sides

The Islamists also have stated positions - the destruction of Israel and recapture of Spain plus the infidels banished form the Middle East. What negotiating do you imagine is possible... withdraw from Middle East in return from their leaving Spain? What will your negotiating position be?

If you totally annihilate your enemy - troops and civilians there is no possibility of a comeback, Genghis Khan practiced this to great effect, Alexander would allow rule by proxy on conquered lands but any dissent then all would be put to the sword..ditto for the Romans
Does anyone (besides the obvious) still bother about the Armenian genocide? If all the Jewish population had perished during WW2 would it now be such a big deal? Or is it that the survivors make sure the issue is kept alive, no one seems to care too much about the gypsies sent to the gas chambers

Total war only started after London was bombed, prior to that only military installations were targeted by both sides

[AlfredJPruffock]

The Islamists also have stated positions - the destruction of Israel

The Saudis in fact offered recently a Middle East peace settlement that was ignored by Israel so that to claim that Islamists want the destruction of Israel is rather misleading,the rhetoric used by Iran in this way helps to bolster the regeime but the Iranian President, cannot claim to speak for Islam.


And that repugnant view is not shared by the governments of Jordan nor Egypt.


In the same way neither can Blair nor Bush can claim to speak on behalf of the Christian Church, I am not sure if they even claim to be Christians anymore as they dont seem as vocal about it,or perhaps the elections are too distant, Im sure Chico can correct me on this one.


But the Iranian president can, one supposes, claim that is a goal of the current Iranian foreign policy, in much the same way as the eventual destruction of Iraq as a state seems,in effect, a goal of the US foreign policy.


Good job Im a Taoist!

[GreenerGrass]

"hearts and minds" approach never worked during any conflict

Seemed to work in Malaya. But it seems tragic watching British squaddies trying to employ these tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq given the sheer scale of what they are up against. It would be a real vote winner for everyone in Britain, of any religion, to pull them all out ASAP.

Along with support for Israel and perhaps the feeling of being "used" and then cast aside in Afghanistan, US influence and presence in Saudi Arabia - in support of the Saudi Royals - was another major defining factor in shaping Bin Laden's hatred of the USA.
On another note did anyone else read Bin Laden fancied Whitney Houston like crazy and wanted her as one of his wives. He wanted to get Bobby Brown killed (so not all bad then), and used to watch Miami Vice which was one of his favourite shows.

Even if you are daft enough to hold a pro-war neo-con point of view, you have to admit the US invaded the wrong country. Saddam was doing a great job of keeping Islam fundamentalism and religious strife under control in Iraq. Any future government will have to employ the same tactics in the end.
While Pakistan and Saudi have pro-US rulers there is no need to invade them even though most Al Queda recruits have come from there.
So why did they invade Iraq instead of the real bogeyman, Iran? The links to terrorism with Iran were far, far more concrete.

The leadership of Iran must be laughing now, their main rival in the region is crippled for decades, and thanks to the threat of cutting oil supplies together with an already stretched US military they are almost untouchable by the US.
I used to think invading Iran would be easier if you hopped over the border from Iraq, but if the counter insurgency war stepped up to its full potential the US would need at least 10 times more troops.
Condoleeza and co. are still talking with the arrogance of a playground bully, but there is little they can do apart from airstikes which will be a) ineffective unless nuclear bunker-busters and b) will push oil to $150-200 a barrel.
Iran holds the best cards, they have them over a barrel.

[AlfredJPruffock]

On another note did anyone else read Bin Laden fancied Whitney Houston like crazy and wanted her as one of his wives.

Aha ...was that the real reason for the Sep 11th ... did she sing I miss you like crazy ?

It does look like Iran is holding all the cards, canny chess players up to their elbows the lot of them.

[Hart-floot]

All bolloxs

The war in N.I should have been taken to the Irish who were the true sponsors of terrorism, Dublin carpet bombed and the job Cromwell started finished & all R.C's ethnically cleansed. Then you would have had real peace.

It was largely US Aid (NORAID etc) that financed and supplied arms to the IRA. Carpet Bombing Boston & New York would have been much more effective

[Troll]

It was largely US Aid (NORAID etc) that financed and supplied arms to the IRA. Carpet Bombing Boston & New York would have been much more effective

I would have used this as justification for not getting involved in Americas war on terror