If Obama Wins

Here is a question for you:
If the west was to pull out of the middle east completely and then in a fit delussional grandeur even pack up Israel and drop it in the Arizona desert leaving the entire middle east to who ever the hell was left there do you really think bin Laden and the boys will go into retirement?

I know I don't, the reality is that the more you accommodate him the more he and his merry band will want and it will not stop at the middle east.

My personal belief is that there are and should be no scenarios that see the likes of Bin Laden dying of old age.
 
Last edited:
Here is a question for you:
If the west was to pull out of the middle east completely and then in a fit delussional grandeur even pack up Israel and drop it in the Arizona desert leaving the entire middle east to who ever the hell was left there do you really think bin Laden and the boys will go into retirement?

I know I don't, the reality is that the more you accommodate him the more he and his merry band will want and it will not stop at the middle east.

My personal belief is that there are and should be no scenarios that see the likes of Bin Laden dying of old age.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Retirement no, kept to his own yard yes. Osama has no support outside of Muslim countries, he is only successful where he has a sympathetic ear to his anti-west rants. So why on earth would he want to come to the Lion's Den where he is universally despised and there is an enormous price on his head? It be like Bush trying to convert Pakistan to evanglist Christianity.

Secondly I never said Osama should be allowed to win or even be allowed to continue to breathing, all I said was just that WE (the USA) have no business in the Middle East, least of all with a oppressive regime like the kingdom of Saud, a family so corrupt and arrogent they named the whole country after themselves.
 
Secondly I never said Osama should be allowed to win or even be allowed to continue to breathing, all I said was just that WE (the USA) have no business in the Middle East, least of all with a oppressive regime like the kingdom of Saud, a family so corrupt and arrogent they named the whole country after themselves.

I don't agree, the US can go anywhere that legitimate governments invite them to be and if the people of said countries have an issue with that then they should take it up with their own respective governments and not run around blowing things up.

I am not going to argue the merits of the Saudi's because they don't appear to have a great deal of them but whether the US should be dealing with the Saudi's is an issue for the American people its government not Bin Laden.
 
For many of these groups, having an enemy, whether it be the Saud Family, the USA or whatnot, is the only legitimate source of their power.
Just think, you have a concept like Satan except it has now become something you can see, hear, feel, even kill... and you have MILLIONS of young people who know their lives will amount to nothing but here's their chance to be a hero.
Mmarsh, you have to realize this. It applies to our own government as well as their own bodies of governance may it be legal or not: power is a means to itself, it is not a means to an end.
 
If I can go back to my original post, the problem lies with Osama et al (let us include the Taliban as there is evidence that they did and continue to shield Osama) and not with the people of Iraq.

Nobody would ever (will almost no one) argue with the fact that Saddam was a despot. But there so a many others in the world. I don’t see the US and others invading them. The US public were lied too, deceived and continue to send their sons to die (well maybe not some Senators) in a war they should never have got involved in from day one. Anyone sensing a little déjà vu here?

The US WILL leave Iraq (today, tomorrow, the next day) and end up handing Iraq back to a government that is not favourably disposed to the West. The US dollar has depreciated 34% in the last period. Even Iran have been pushing this fact. The US can not afford the war in Iraq, simple.

There is also going to come a time when these Middle Eastern nations are going start insisting on paying for oil only in Euro because of their very negative view of the US. Let us see what that does for the dollar and the balance of payments which is out the window already.

This thread seems to have taken the direction of whether talking to terrorists is a good or bad thing. The real fact of the matter is that there will never be a solution to these matters without dialogue.

For all you “nay sayers”, read Cobra II, maybe it will open the blinkers a little.
 
This thread seems to have taken the direction of whether talking to terrorists is a good or bad thing. The real fact of the matter is that there will never be a solution to these matters without dialogue.

For all you “nay sayers”, read Cobra II, maybe it will open the blinkers a little.

I agree that dialogue is in the end going to be the deciding factor however that dialogue can not happen until one side is sufficiently weakened enough to be brought to the negotiating table.

In the case of Al Qaeda and co I doubt this position will arise until Bin Laden is dead and Bush's presidency is a distant memory and even then it will be a slow disintegration process of negotiating with fringe groups until such time as Al Qaeda no long pose a threat.

I agree though that this is not a battle that can be won on a purely military basis.
 
Last edited:
In the case of Al Qaeda and co I doubt this position will arise until Bin Laden is dead and Bush's presidency is a distant memory and even then it will be a slow disintegration process of negotiating with fringe groups until such time as Al Qaeda no long pose a threat.

I agree though that this is not a battle that can be won on a purely military basis.
Do you really think that the death of Bin Laden will alter the course of the Muslim radicals? I fear that it may just elevate him to the status of a martyr and groups like Al Qaeda will just use his martyrdom as a stepping stone to continue the fight against those who killed him.

To be honest, I feel that Bin Laden has lost his power to really take a proactive part in this debacle other than as a figurehead, in which case his death will have little or no positive effect for the coalition. In fact it would not surprise me if it was found that he was a bigger thorn in our side, dead than alive.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the fact that he may be dead already.
Al Qaeda is only one of their organizations and not most nasty, Hamas is more of threat and so are the ones we don't even know the names of yet that I am sure are also here and abroad waiting to do bad things to us.
 
Do you really think that the death of Bin Laden will alter the course of the Muslim radicals? I fear that it may just elevate him to the status of a martyr and groups like Al Qaeda will just use his martyrdom as a stepping stone to continue the fight against those who killed him.

I don't think he will become a Martyr he has killed too many of his own kind for them believe that, I think he is just as disliked by mainstream Muslims as he his by everyone else.

What I do believe though is that he is a figurehead in a process very much like Adolph Hitler was and had Hitler died in any one of those assassination attempts WW2 would have been over in a heartbeat.


To be honest, I feel that Bin Laden has lost his power to really take a proactive part in this debacle other than as a figurehead, in which case his death will have little or no positive effect for the coalition. In fact it would not surprise me if it was found that he was a bigger thorn in our side, dead than alive.
I am sorry but I do believe he is the proverbial serpent, cut off its head and body will die or in this case lose cohesion and "heart".
 
Last edited:
I am sorry but I do believe he is the proverbial serpent, cut off its head and body will die or in this case lose cohesion and "heart".
I feel that for this to happen, there is too much hatred of "The West" and that Bin laden himself is now largely emasculated. In fact I don't think he played nearly as big a role as he is credited with. In the early days he exhorted the radical elements of Islam to take on the the non Muslim world, or to be more exact the USA and anyone who supported them.

He is now just a figurehead, isolated in the mountains of the Afghan/Paki border area of little value to the Taliban and al Qaeda other than to taunt the Coalition.

I have never been a great believer that he was an active "leader" but more just a focal point. Unfortuntely it has been the Coalition and in particular the USA who has aided him into this position with their constant demonising of him. I believe that there have been dozens of men who have been of more practical use to the radical Muslim cause than he.
 
Fat Frank rarely do I stumble across people with whom I happen to disagree as systematically as I do with you.

It never suprises me when a person who has NO experience of miitary action is quick to suggest this as an option.

“War would end if the dead could return.” Stanley Baldwin
 
Not to mention the fact that he may be dead already.
Al Qaeda is only one of their organizations and not most nasty, Hamas is more of threat and so are the ones we don't even know the names of yet that I am sure are also here and abroad waiting to do bad things to us.

Actually al Qaeda is much nastier, you see Hamas like the IRA is made of up moderate and extreme wings. Al Qaeda hates all non-muslims who they view as an offense to God, Hamas's struggle with Isreal is a political fight over territory. Hamas has never expressed a desire to irradicate other religions or cultures and has even stated that Jews and Christians would be welcome in the new Palestinian state. Hamas has never launched an attack against another country other than Israel, including the US.

I sympathize with part of Hamas cause (because I view the Israeli occupation of the West bank to be an illegal military occupation), but I strongly condemn its methods as they deliberately target civilians.

Al Qaeda is a bunch of religious fanatics who which to return the Middle East to a 13th century caliphate, there is no moderation, no compromise, or toleration in al qaeda.
 
Last edited:
You only have to read the NY Times today to get the point. 3 articles of relevance:

1. 500 US soldiers now dead in AFGHANISTAN. My point is that there are not enough resources being deployed where it matters and where the fight is because of commitments in other areas, particularly, Iraq.
2. The UK Government gave information to Bush in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, Bush chose to ignore the advice for the simple reason that there was a different agenda.
3. The “letter” purporting to link Saddam with al Qaeda and 9/11, the only evidence ever given, was false. It was prepared by CIA contacts and given to an Iraqi journalist to give it some credibility.

There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes and the US public were lied to and made the mistake of supporting Bush on the back of false evidence.

The cat is out of the bag, every day more and more comes to light. There is no honour in holding out now. There is very little honour in continuing to send your sons to Iraq to die for these lies.
 
The quality of debate in this thread is becoming well drawn. I would just like to intervene to make a couple of general points.

First, the impression is given that the situation in Iraq is improving, and we have to see that this may not suit the case of its critics - I speak militarily and politically. USA will have established an Iraq which has no wish to lay at the mercy of its neighbours, so its relationship with USA may not be all negative. I dare not slip in the whisper of success, but who knows.

Secondly, with all its faults, the world leadership and control by USA is the best option we have, the only option we have at present. Nowhere else can you find the motivation or the inclination. UN? - please!

This situation may well change with the emergence of up and coming world powers, but for the moment USA holds the conch with all its damned responsibilities.

We all understand that you do not wish such responsibility loaded into your shoulders, but Americans should stop whipping themselves and their performance. No-one else can currently cut the mustard, and I would be sad to see USA moving away from the ideals which drive it. Hold to the big picture.
 
Last edited:
DelBoy, by and large, I am in agreement regarding the USAs unenviable position as the World's Policeman. However your point below is typical of how a good spin is put on poor (some would say criminal) politics.

First, the impression is given that the situation in Iraq is improving, and we have to see that this may not suit the case of its critics - I speak militarily and politically.
Did anyone ever stop to think that this "improvement" need never have been necessary had the NeoCons found another way of securing GWBs place in the White House?

It's a bit like throwing the baby into a tub of boiling water, then after an hour or so when the water cools saying, "Things are definitely improving" I've done a great job, please pat me on the back.

The truth is, like so many, "You've been had".
 
First, the impression is given that the situation in Iraq is improving, and we have to see that this may not suit the case of its critics - I speak militarily and politically. USA will have established an Iraq which has no wish to lay at the mercy of its neighbours, so its relationship with USA may not be all negative. I dare not slip in the whisper of success, but who knows.


The problem is that we hear this every year and its starting to fall on skeptical ears...

August 1, 2008:

Citing Stability in Iraq, Bush Sees Troop Cuts

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: August 1, 2008
President George W. Bush on Thursday suggested the possibility of further troop reductions in Iraq as the security situation con*tinues to show marked improvement.
Mr Bush said July had been a "month of encouraging news", with violence declining to its lowest level since early 2004. He added that General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, had said that while progress was still "reversible" there was now a "degree of durability" to the security gains.
One year ago:
US may reduce forces in Iraq by spring
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 22, 6:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The U.S. may be able to reduce combat forces in Iraq by next spring if Iraq's own security forces continue to grow and improve, a senior American commander said Friday. He denied reports the U.S. is arming Sunni insurgent groups to help in the fight against al-Qaida.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, did not predict any reductions in U.S. forces but said such redeployments may be feasible by spring. There are currently 156,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Two years ago:
U.S. general in Iraq outlines troop cuts
Michael R. Gordon The New York Times
Published: June 25, 2006
WASHINGTON The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
[...]
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.
Three years ago:
U.S. Signals Spring Start for Pullout
General Restates Position, Noting Contingencies, During Rumsfeld Visit to Baghdad
By Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 28, 2005; Page A18
BAGHDAD, July 27 -- The top U.S. military leader in Iraq said Wednesday there could be substantial withdrawals of some of the 135,000 U.S. troops in the country as early as next spring.
[...]
"If the political process continues to go positively, and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going, I do believe we'll still be able to take some fairly substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and summer," Casey said before meeting with Jafari.
Four years ago:
Building Iraqi Security Forces Must Continue, Sanchez Says
By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 11, 2004 – The commander of coalition forces in Iraq said today that continuing to build Iraqi security forces is key to a successful transfer of sovereignty.
[...]
Handing over security to the Iraqi people will depend upon the coalition's ability to quickly stand up Iraqi security forces, especially the police, the army and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps.
[...]
This involves building the security forces in small units and police stations to provide the law and order in the cities, he said, and also giving Iraq the external security capacity it will need over the next couple of years. "I think it's going to take us awhile," he said, "but we're committed to it, and we'll be here until that's done."
Sanchez said the 129,000 U.S. service members currently in Iraq are an adequate number, "and we'll manage their redeployment as the operational and tactical situation dictates."
 
I take your points guys - but you know how I feel - I want to see the big gest picture, which means standing back and away somewhat . I guess I await history. My view is now that, whatever the ins and outs of the decision to go to war, and God knows Sadam got enough warning, there is a job to be done and is being done; this is what Obama will face, if he is the chosen one, this is what he will have to deal with. Finish the job, or take the popular route ? He will not be competing with Geo W. over tactics - that time is long gone.

What if an acceptable political situation is achieved, following a very short and successful war, and a disaster of a post-war campaign . What if the strategy actually works; what if the middle east is gradually and patiently transformed?

What if ? Yeah, I know. The big picture, a long telescope. It's all still too close for me to make a firm judgement.

I agree with both of you that all the accepted certainties seem to be with you, but I still back the good guys and good intentions rather than the unqualified condemnation scenario . I am concerned with looking forward, not backwards.

I understand that Obama has not ALWAYS been against the Iraq war, soon we may be able to see what he is made of, and as President it will need to be good, and I will throw my lot in with the President of USA, as always. Not as a fan, but as a hard-head. I cannot believe that in a job that big, that awesome, any man can fail to give of his best, for his best reasons.

Just my opinion, I ain't gonna fight about it. I guess it will unfold to a large degree within the next few months. Awesome!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top