Is a truce possible?

[Gorgon]

Bin laden and his group is neither motivated by money or the destruction of Chistianity.

 

He wants the US to stop it's support for Saudi Arabia and Israel, and to aid the ascendancy of Islamic extremism throughout the middle east and the world.

 

On the latter count he has been quite successful, inspiring several sister organisations.

 

From the US perspective of course vital interests are involved, energy, long term stability. ect.

 

If Sadam had lived in Africa he would still be merrily warring and exterminating political rivals.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Gorgon

[Dark Moth]

Bin laden and his group is neither motivated by money or the destruction of Chistianity.

 

He want's the US to stop it's support for Saudi Arabia and Israel, and to aid the ascendancy of Islamic extremism throughout the middle east and the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agree with you there, but don't think he isn't motivated by the destruction of Christianity. With his form of Islamic Extremism, the destruction/subjugation of Jews and Christians throughout the world is an agenda. Also, just look at his speeches and statements and how he often refers to Christians/Crusaders as part of his enemies. Also, if you've ever seen it on the news, there's an al-Qaida training video in which the extremists burst into a house and aim at a target with a big cross painted across its chest.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Mothman

[Arkan]

There is no truce, only Zuul.

[Nartwak]

There is no truce, only Zuul.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Commissar]

There won't be peace because US geopolitical and economic interests strech far and deep into the ME, plus the fact a vital part of US economy today is the military industrial complex which made the US economy a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war - therefor as long as the US exists in such form there will never be peace of any kind, not now, not ever.

 

 

Farewell and goodbye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

End of Vietnam to the start of the first Gulf War. End of the first Gulf War to the start of the campaign in Afghanistan.

[julianw]

Well, it's final. "We don't negotiate with terrorists. I think you have to destroy them." --- Vice President Chaney

[Lucius]

- I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Good ol' D1ck

[Walsingham]

Does WoT actually mean 'War on Terror'?

 

My opinion:

This is a perfectly sensible attempt by Mr B to make US/UK govts look bad. He needs to portray himself as offerring a peaceful way out while they hammer on relentlessly. This is helpful in demotivating our supporters, and also helpful in motivating his (not all of whom share his fanaticism).

 

Bin Laden/Zawahiri are not interested in peace. They were attacking the US long before Iraq/Afghanistan, and their stated aim is the establishment by war of a global Ummah. The only cessation the bigwigs will accept is unconditional surrender. Mainly because they believe they can win no matter what we do.

 

On a purely practical basis I can't think of a single example where a ceasefire with terrorists has not been to the terrorists advantage. It allows them to rest, regroup, consolidate skills and retrain.

 

But then, you all know I'm a kook, so who cares?

[astr0creep]

Jan 19, 11:11 AM (ET)

 

By LEE KEATH

 

"The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. But the operations are happening in Baghdad and you will see them here at home the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission," he said.

 

 

So... Bin Laden has his home in the US?!

[Stewdawg24]

Bin laden and his group is neither motivated by money or the destruction of Chistianity.

 

He wants the US to stop it's support for Saudi Arabia and Israel, and to aid the ascendancy of Islamic extremism throughout the middle east and the world.

 

On the latter count he has been quite successful, inspiring several sister organisations.

 

From  the US perspective of course vital interests are involved, energy, long term stability. ect.

 

If Sadam had lived in Africa he would still be merrily warring and exterminating political rivals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That last statement is so true. The world has turned a collective 'Blind Eye' to Africa. The problems Africa currently face makes the Middle East look like a playground. Part of the reason that the US invaded Iraq is to establish a foot hold in the Middle East and hopefully stablilize the region. This way they can use it as a launching point for the inevitable terrorist issues that will eventually spring forth from Africa. Notice that old american bases in Germany, France, and the the US are being closed so that those assets can be moved to REgions where they will eventually be needed. There is an excellent book called "The Penatgon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett which discusses all this.

[Pidesco]

That last statement is so true.  The world has turned a collective 'Blind Eye' to Africa.  The problems Africa currently face makes the Middle East look like a playground.  Part of the reason that the US invaded Iraq is to establish a foot hold in the Middle East and hopefully stablilize the region.  This way they can use it as a launching point for the inevitable terrorist  issues that will eventually spring forth from Africa.  Notice that old american bases in Germany, France, and the the US  are being closed so that those assets can be moved to REgions where they will eventually be needed.  There is an excellent book called "The Penatgon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett which discusses all this.

 

 

I don't see why Iraq is a better launching point than say, Europe, against terrorists based in Africa. And lets not forget that if Iraq's main natural resource was turnips, the U.S. wouldn't have touched Saddam with a fifty foot pole.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Soulseeker

[Fighter]

No truce. The only truce there will be is when Laden's head is on a pike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There will be no truce until American foreign policy stops feeding these kinds of people. There will never be a millitary solution to this. What has to be defeated here is an ideology not people.

 

No matter how many terrorists are killed or captured, no matter how many soldiers die or more scyscrapers blown up. This conflict will persist until something changes in people's minds. After one Bin Laden there will be another and lets hope no more then one...

 

Part of the reason that the US invaded Iraq is to establish a foot hold in the Middle East and hopefully stablilize the region.

 

I am sorry, but no. No foreign power can stabilize something that isn't theirs to stabilize and not at gunpoint in any case...

Edited January 20, 2006 by Fighter

[astr0creep]

I don't see why Iraq is a better launching point than say, Europe, against terrorists based in Africa. And lets not forget that if Iraq's main natural resource was turnips, the U.S. wouldn't have touched Saddam with a fifty foot pole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Truth to the extreme.

 

I wish more people would look at these events, since 9/11, with such a clear perspective. Too many are blinded by patriotism and belief in the all powerful providencial government. There are no "good" intentions here.

"

The US (read : US leaders) wants that oil. Period.

 

Iraq provide Europe and Asia(China...) with oil. Whoever controls that ressource controls the old continents. Just like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia controls North America. "

 

The world needs another energy source to make those cars run.

[Gfted1]

I am sorry, but no. No foreign power can stabilize something that isn't theirs to stabilize and not at gunpoint in any case...

 

Huh, the British empire did it sucessfully for centuries. Kooky.

[Stewdawg24]

To say that this war is only about oil is unrealistic and a gross over-simplification of the issues that lead to the war. There are myriad reasons the US is there, not all of which I agree with. Come to think of it, I personally don't think the US should be there at all. We should have spent the time destroying Al Qaida's network and suring up our borders and National Secuirty.

 

AndContrary to what you may think I'm not blinded by patriotism and willing to sacrifice my self for my benevolent and altuistic governent(Sarcasm incase you didn't pick it up). If you read Barrett's book it describes our reasons for wanting to move closer to those area's he refers to as the 'GAP'(middle East, Africa, parts of South America) . The reasons he gives are not altruistic but realistic. The US and it's allies are better served by stablilizing and integrating these areas into the global economy. The more people in the economy the more consumers you have to sell your goods to you. It's the bedrock of capitalism. In addition, areas that are integrated are more productive, see longer life-spans for their inhabitants, their governments are more stable. You should also read Tom Friedman's "The World is Flat" which essential asserts the same thing, but concentrates more on the globalization aspects.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Stewdawg24

[~Di]

Yes, of course, Bush charged into Iraq for oil. Of course, he's spent 200 billion dollars, more than could be received for all the freaking oil in the desert, and Americans now pay 30-50% MORE for petroleum products than they did before invading Iraq (and before last hurricane season, for that matter) so despite speculation to the contrary, oil was probably not very high on Bush's list of reasons for invading.

 

Don't get me wrong, none of the reasons given for the invasion (and the one reason that wasn't given, which I personally give the most weight to) were legitimate, in my opinion, because I don't believe the invasion itself was legitimate. I just grow weary of the "he did it for oil" silliness, which has been proven false by reality.

[Fighter]

Huh, the British empire did it sucessfully for centuries. Kooky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And where is their empire now?

[taks]

I don't see why Iraq is a better launching point than say, Europe, against terrorists based in Africa. And lets not forget that if Iraq's main natural resource was turnips, the U.S. wouldn't have touched Saddam with a fifty foot pole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but france would not have opposed, either. ah yes, funny how france and russia's opposition was more about oil than our willingness, yet rarely is that mentioned.

 

to quote you for myself "Truth to the extreme."

 

I wish more people would look at these events, since 9/11, with such a clear perspective. Too many are blinded by patriotism and belief in the all powerful providencial government. There are no "good" intentions here.

"

bull****.

 

The US (read : US leaders) wants that oil. Period.

yet here it is 3 years later and we aren't reaping any of the benefits. au contraire, we are spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS with no return. exactly what oil is it that we plan to get out of this?

 

Iraq provide Europe and Asia(China...) with oil. Whoever controls that ressource controls the old continents. Just like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia controls North America.  "

hate to tell you but over 60% of the US oil comes from good ole north america. nice try, but facts always win over hyperbole and blustering.

 

The world needs another energy source to make those cars run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can't argue that, but how about proposals rather than accusations.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

Huh, the British empire did it sucessfully for centuries. Kooky.

 

And where is their empire now?

 

 

Well, times change. So were you saying that eventually "No foreign power can stabilize something that isn't theirs to stabilize and not at gunpoint in any case." regardless of the amout of time that passes? In that case, I agree.

[taks]

empires can never stabilize even what is theirs. the british did if for centuries, as did the romans and even the greeks, yet fall they did. the US is probably setting a modern day record for longevity (i'd say britain, too, but they were technically still a monarchy when we were formed so their current "society" is younger). i'm not prepared to discuss how much further this record will continue... ugh.

 

taks

[kirottu]

The

Advanced

Killing

Sentry

 

... Carry on... Nothing to see here...

[taks]

yeah... that's it... gotcha.

 

taks

[Azarkon]

The US - longevity as an empire? Come on now. The US has not been an empire for more than 100-200 years, and only in the last hundred years or so has it become a superpower. The Roman Empire flourished longer than that, and Chinese dynastives far longer.

[Dyan]

Huh, the British empire did it sucessfully for centuries. Kooky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And where is their empire now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We let the countries under our rule declare/ask for their independence and get away with it. We even said "yes" when Canada asked.

 

 

Edit: but in answer to the original topic - No, a truce is not possible, and will never be possible as long as both sides are intent on killing one another. And at least one of them is.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Dyan

[moreKOTORplz]

i thought him and bush were allies already... oh they are going to make it public