unclehobart
New Member
Its an innoculation along the same scale as an antibiotic. You have to overthrow prolonged medium heavy terror with a brief instance of extreme terror in order to lay out the template for no terror.
flav
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
unclehobart
New Member
Considering that the region has been utterly screwed up since the days that Alexander the Great rolled through town, brief is a matter of months in my eyes. Defeating the army will not take long. The trial lies in trying to deprogram a brainwashed populace that has known nothing but hardscrabble survival, xenophobia to anything outside of their own villages, and no other way of life other than waging war on friend and enemies alike. Its very hard to convince a multi generational entrenched mindset to let go of preconceptions and vendettas. Its almost not worth it to try and talking to anyone over the age of 21 as their minds are fairly set. You have to work with the young.
unclehobart
New Member
It just can't be done with western whitey hands at the throttle. That would just be seen as a continuation of of the Brit occupation around WW1 and cause them to doubt and reject everything told to them. The power structure needs to be handed back to Iraqi citizens asap, and with no strings attached. No troops, no industrial sweetheart deals... just roll up to the docks with food and FUBU sweatshirts every once in a while.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Squig, I've reread this thread, my statement, and this statement of yours a few times now, and haven't settled on an interpretation. I keep reading it different ways, and I'm not sure what you were implying. Before I reply, could you clarify what exactly you meant?Squiggy said:
Squiggy
ThunderDick
The point of my entire post was that you're all ganging up on him and then expecting him to maintain balance. Specifically, I thought your question could use another point of approach. The answer isn't readily available to anyone. Its one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' questions. It all depends on what direction you approach it from. Regardless of his answer, an argument could made of it. i.e. Catch 22
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Do you have direct access to all military intelligence regarding Saddam's violations of UN resolutions? No? Then how do you know there was no decent case against him?flavio said:
Um... no? They certainly can't reach our shores anyway. They do present a threat to neighboring countries though, as we have witnessed in the past, and they serve as vehicles to distribute chemical and biological agents.
yes, but are we a neighboring country? Do they threaten us directly? No, but we threaten them directly, we will soon be threatening Iran and North Korea directly (acutally, you might be able to say we have threatened them already). So does that give them the right to make a preemptive strike on us? Does it? Ok, they may not be able to gather an army sufficent to threaten us, but they could use 'terrorism.' I don't think any of us would want this would we? Yet, we threaten them, and we will continue to threaten others. Should they have a right to attack us first because we 'threaten them.' I hope nobody thinks they do, because if so, you just made a case for terrorism! But isn't our war a preemptive one? Aren't we attacking based on a threat? What about Iran, and North Korea? You will make any number of cases against Iraq with UN resolutions, but what about the rest of the 'axis of evil.' Are we justified to attack them first because of a threat?
None this is so clear cut as people are trying to make it. But anyway...
