| | Let me ask... Do you have another way to keep the current regime from becoming armed with nuclear weapons? Is allowing this regime to get this nuclear weapons something you would be willing to go to war for? Perhaps. I beleive the answer lies in the recent unrest following the "election." The people there seem ready for a change. There are way to foster that sentiment and support it.
War? I would say military action.
Let me ask... Do you agree that this current Radical Islamic regime in Iran is a significant danger to our country? They are a danger. All out war or recurring militray action could make this worse. It would also possibly build up negative sentiments within the populace. Given their negative disposition towards their own governemnt I would not wantto do that. I'd rather they think of us as a spiritual ally.
----------------------
On the nationalized oil properties, as I stated, the first approach would be an attempt to make International Law work. The idea would be to have the Attorney General file a case before the appropriate court. If it doesn't work, then it becomes a military project. The oil is not worth the cost now. If we were going to stop it, then we should have done it when the nationalization happened. Was it wrong? Yes. But to try to get it back will cost us more than it's worth.
You asked what is done when they blow it up. It isn't possible to blow up an oil reservoir - the only thing that can be blown up is the well head, pumps, etc. Those are replacable.
You will not be able top maintain the cost in replacement parts, time, and man-power. Oil costs will go up rather than down.
The principle here is the same as if a thief who says, "If you try to get back the car I stole, I'll throw a brick through the windshield." Do you let the thief keep the car? I don't think so. Getting back the oil reservoirs AND stopping the flow of funds to terrorists are the goals.
The principle is not the issue. Oil reserves are not a car either, you can't move them someplace safe and easy to defend.
Let me ask... Do you believe that oil reservoirs held by governments that nationalized them should be allowed to keep them? We have allowed this.
---------------------
The Victory in the war against the Somai pirates/warlords is not the death of the warlords. It is the end of piracy (which also stops that flow of money to terrorists).
We accomplish this in the same way we accomplished it when Jefferson sent our tiny little navy to the Barbary Coast - you attack with military forces. I don't know what else to say about that or what kind of information you want.
This seems a reasonable plan. It could be done in a combined way that would eventually put them out of business!
Let me ask... Do want to let the pirates continue as they please? If not, what do you suggest?
Nope. They should be put to the sword.
-------------------------
On the Taliban, I would not engage in troops on the ground apart from quick in-and-out raids and air attacks. I would not engage in any nation building or attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people. I would use herbacides on opium crops. These approaches have only been partially followed during the last 9 years. And, for the most part, it has only been practiced in Afghanistan and not when the Taliban were across the border in Pakistan.
I have little hope of nice, clean victory, or a short end of the problems. I see it as an ongoing process that keeps Al Queda from gaining strength. I hope that there are better answers out there, but I haven't heard one yet.
The war against Al Qaeda is one of preventing funding, but mostly drying up their access to people.
Let me ask.... Would you cease all military activity against Al Queda and the Taliban? Do you have other approaches that you think would work better? No. The best way to destroy the drug trade (including the craziness in Mexico) is to legalize drugs. The war on drugs is both a failure and foolishness incarnate. It simply is a resource drain that accomplishes nothing. People own their lives and that's that. As for a better way, yes. Militray actionis limited in what it can affect. Our diplomatic efforts have been idiotic. We need to rethink that approach entirely. That's a big topic, but it is key.
---------------------
If the efforts to stop the Saudi's from funding Islamist Terrorism were started a while after the declaration of war against Iran, I suspect that all requests would be treated with great seriousness and be very effective. For decades I've seen an extremely peculiar psychological response from nearly all of the Islamic middle east political factions - they nearly always go to vocal extremes in statements of intended violence they are going to engage in and act as if there was absolutely no danger that they will be attacked or taken seriously. But on the few cases where they are dealt with strongly, they usually immediately change their positions. It is a cultural difference that the West still doesn't fully appreciate. Carrying a big stick, and using it when appropriate is very, very important when dealing with the middle-east.
-----------------
We have been a paper tiger for certain. We should only threaten to use force if we are going to use force.
Ethan, it is your turn to explain what you would do, and why.
I think we should take this in stages.
Stage1 involves making clear statements that we will be changing our policies.
a) Al Qaeda and other radical groups claim we are at war with Islam. We will re-state that we are NOT at war with Islam.
b) These groups further claim that we are occupying Muslim lands. To that end we will announce or plans to withdraw from these lands.
Sound like capitualtion so far?
c) These groups also claim we support evil governments, such as the Saudi governement, Israel, etc. To that end we will announce a plan to withdraw ALL economic and military support. That includes Israel too.
Total folding?
We'll let that simmer for a while to see what crops up in response. That said, these plans should be real and in place before our announcments.
More later
|
|
