Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead.

I agree with the broad interpretation of Teresa, Joseph, and Kurt.

We need more September 12th thinking people.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/12, 9:51am)

Post 61

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 8:50am

Teresa wrote:

I like you too much to be hostile. :)

LOL, ok fair enough. No hostile tone interpreted by me then :)

As I said I certainly have sympathy for your arguement. I think in my opinion perhaps there may have been better targets to choose than Iraq. I always thought Iran was a greater threat to us than Iraq was and our military resources should've been devoted to toppling that awful government.

In any case, back to the original topic of this thread, a friend of mine said it best about Zarqawi

"Rest in pieces, you piece of shit"

Post 62

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 9:39am

Aaron, in reply to your question, I was using the idea that chaos and lack of order is a breeding ground for problems. So, for example when Pablo Escabar was killed, it didn't take long for new criminal organizations to pop back up, as long as the root cause (demand for cocaine bec/illegal status) remained. Similarly, terrorists and criminals of all stripes use chaotic areas as their base of operations. In terms of Nations, it can vary, but suppose that the Shah had been what Sadaam was and we toppled him, only to see him replaced by the Mullahs, or in Afghanistan we supported the ousting of Russia and helped contribute to their collapse but without any replacement the chaos remained and al-quaeda was able to use that.

Post 63

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 9:52am

Bob, there are serious flaws in your arguments, and I will deal with the Swiss. First of all, the Swiss are surrounded by mountains. Neutrals like the Netherlands and Denmark were not so blessed and overrun in days (although also their Militia was not as effective). In addition, the Germans had value in leaving the Swiss alone, these are the same Swiss who laundered gold for them, gold taken from melted teeth of people who were exterminated with less thought that one would kill an animal for food. It was also useful as a neutral territory for diplomacy, and they could buy products from them as well. In short, there was no need to occupy them and many reasons not to. This does not mean their strategy is easily duplicated or has much bearing on a globalized economy.

Post 64

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:09am

Aaron, how is choosing who and what to trade with non-neutral? Is it not our right to decide whom to sell to and whom to provide aid to? Are not the flying tigers the exact example of saying "if you want to put your life on the line, feel free to do so" that I hear so often from people suggesting non-interference? They were private citizens and paid by the Chinese government. If Japan and Germany didn't want a war, they should have shut the hell up and taken their lumps. They should have tried to dismember the British on their own and left us out of it. Frankly, I would much rather have to be concerned with aid and embargoes than an active hostile, especially one the size of the US. However, they were arrogant and short-sighted, and we gave them back what they asked for.

Post 65

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 12:30pm

Escabar I see as a valid example in his niche, but not valid in the sense of dictators/terrorists (who I hope there's not a major 'demand' for). Mullahs example may be good though. Eliminating an autocrat I expect would have the effect I mentioned. An evil theocracy with a well-defined and implemented order of succession, though - could be much messier.

You're right that the Swiss example would be tough for Netherlands or Belgium to emulate effectively (good luck finding any strategy for them that would be :) ). I think the question more at hand is if it would work for the US, and there I think the answer is an emphatic yes. If defense-only neutrality can work for a landlocked nation surrounded by Germany, Austria, Italy and France - even one blessed with plenty of mountains - then I don't see the problem for a nation 3000 miles of ocean from any aggressors more threatening than Canada.

For the rest I feel I need to disclaimer this with letters the size of billboards due to discussions I've had elsewhere on anything related to WWII - I am not defending or excusing anything Japan or Germany did. I am just countering the common misperception that the US was neutral and isolationist prior to 12/7/41.

"Aaron, how is choosing who and what to trade with non-neutral?"

For individuals making such a choice would still be neutral; that's not what we're talking about here though. This is government making the choice for individuals - effectively saying it will use force to prevent its own people from engaging in voluntary trade with those in another nation.

"Is it not our right to decide whom to sell to and whom to provide aid to?"

The point is just that if you get involved to give military aid to one side of a conflict, that's not neutrality.

"Are not the flying tigers the exact example of saying "if you want to put your life on the line, feel free to do so" that I hear so often from people suggesting non-interference?"

I'd like it if they were. However, the AVG (American Volunteer Group, real name of the Flying Tigers) had some significant differences from the example of a free-lance freedom fighter or soldier of fortune. The AVG was largely organized by US government, funded (through Chinese intermediaries) by the US, and the US pilots who volunteered were cooperatively discharged from official US military service to participate.

Post 66

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 3:35pm