Author Topic: Cowboy Putin (Read 2366 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** November 20, 2001, 04:25:00 PM »

I think you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

There's a problem right now with the Northern Alliance, as anyone with common sense could have predicted. Despite all their assurances to the contrary, it looks like they intend to be THE party in control of Afghanistan.

I don't think that's going to stand but right now I also don't think the "coalition" needs to put a large amount of ground troops into Afghanistan.

It may well come to pass that the NA is going to have to get slapped around a bit to make them behave. If so, it'll be like what you just saw, air power first. In that event, you don't want a bunch of coalition troops around to be targets. Just let the air rake them over for a while; they can't respond in any meaningful fashion.

Then, when the NA tanks and BMPs are all smoking and the horse herds are decimated

it'll be time for troops. Coalition first, then UN.

I hope it doesn't have to go that far but the NA isn't real high on my list of trustworthy organizations.

***

I have no reliable information, but my "gut" tells me the US is going to Iraq. It has to be done. If not us who? If not now, when?

If the rest of the world wants to play ostrich while Saddam builds up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, so be it.

It's time to take out ALL the trash. He's been a smelly pile of trash for quite some time.

Of course, maybe the populace of Iraq will decide it's easier to dump Saddam than to play the starring role in "Gulf War II: This Time We Mean It"

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #46 on:** November 20, 2001, 05:15:00 PM »

My attitudes and posts towards you aside Dowding, what would you do with Saddam?

Hangtime · « **Reply #47 on:** November 20, 2001, 05:27:00 PM »

Can you say "Doggie Treat" ??

straffo · « **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2001, 02:40:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by texter:

heh, not much sympathy for the French either but I think that's an inherited virtue.

Tex

grrrr

I must apologise a bit ... I was upset tomorrow and you got a kind of "lost bullet".

But IMO you should not said things like that : how can we expect mercy if we are unable to show a single bit of mercy ?

I'm dreamer ... and I still believe that it the environement who build the behaviour/personnality of an human .

straffo · « **Reply #49 on:** November 21, 2001, 02:42:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
My attitudes and posts towards you aside Dowding, what would you do with Saddam?

Well ... (for me a least)

Nothing legal (*) (I just hate this guy)

(*) but nothing sexual either ... what do you think ... naughty boy

Dowding · « **Reply #50 on:** November 21, 2001, 11:03:00 AM »

The populace of Iraq is too scared to do a thing about Saddam.

The Iraqi army is the only place where any rebellion could begin and be carried through. But it hasn't worked in the past there either.

The Kurds have tried it and failed (twice in last 10 years). I doubt they'll trust a Westerner again in regards to that subject.

I believe Colin Powell himself was against going to Baghdad in '91. Mainly because of the fragile coalition, prospect of a large number of US casualties and the lack of any UN mandate. Perhaps he has changed his mind.

As for the NA? At least the Taliban brought some law and order to the place. Even if it was a perverted kind of justice.

The only thing good about the NA was the fact they were against the Taliban, and it was therefore politically expedient to support them.

Otherwise I would probably trust them as much as the IRA or UVF. Gangsters, the lot of them.

Hangtime · « **Reply #51 on:** November 21, 2001, 12:01:00 PM »

Quote

Otherwise I would probably trust them as much as the IRA or UVF. Gangsters, the lot of them.

I think I agree... when it comes time to set up the coalition government the US mediators should be equipped with .45's.

The first time a NA 'leader' makes the obligatory absurd demand, the Mediator should shoot him, and tell the NA people, "Send in the next NA representitive to the Coalition Government please." When the Pastuns make a ridiculous demand, have the Mediator shoot him, and tell the Pashtuns "You see how this is going... please send in your next representitive. Quickly, we wanna get this done by lunch."

Boroda · « **Reply #52 on:** November 21, 2001, 12:45:00 PM »

Hangtime, is it a usual American way to solve problems? Or just special solution for peacekeeping operations?

I wonder how long such "mediators" will survive.

Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, and withdrew becouse of a plain treason of Gorbachev and his "democratic-communist" friends. Using such methods instead of humanitarian, educational and technical aid will make "mediators" hang on the trees in 2 hours.

Udie · « **Reply #53 on:** November 21, 2001, 01:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:
[QB]

As for the NA? At least the Taliban brought some law and order to the place. Even if it was a perverted kind of justice.

The only thing good about the NA was the fact they were against the Taliban, and it was therefore politically expedient to support them.
[QB]

anybody else see the glaring contradiction in these 2 paragraphs?

Dowding, you are one baked individual. Are you crosseyed?

Dowding · « **Reply #54 on:** November 21, 2001, 01:43:00 PM »

Quote

anybody else see the glaring contradiction in these 2 paragraphs?

There was meant to be. Think about it. With one group, we use humanitarian abuse as one of the the justifications (or in the very least a PR motivational tool) in the campaign for action. With the other, we ignore humanitarian abuse and give our support.

It's called political expediency. It is the reason why, in the space of 10 years, we can go from arming a dictator to bombing him into oblivion. It's all about concentrating on the smaller picture; short term gains based on knee-jerk reactions.

Crosseyed? No. Sick of the personal insults? Yes. But then again, insults are the last resort of the desperate and unimaginative.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Udie · « **Reply #55 on:** November 21, 2001, 02:36:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:

There was meant to be. Think about it. With one group, we use humanitarian abuse as one of the the justifications (or in the very least a PR motivational tool) in the campaign for action. With the other, we ignore humanitarian abuse and give our support.

It's called political expediency. It is the reason why, in the space of 10 years, we can go from arming a dictator to bombing him into oblivion. It's all about concentrating on the smaller picture; short term gains based on knee-jerk reactions.

Crosseyed? No. Sick of the personal insults? Yes. But then again, insults are the last resort of the desperate and unimaginative.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

The situations is more like on one side you have a diddlying bunch of barbarions who are hiding the man that killed 5000 people. Some of the others are actually the people we backed 20 yrs a go, the Mujahadin. Are they barbaric? yes by our standards I'd say they are, BUT they don't harbor people that knocked down the WTC and kill 5000 people.

and yes I think you are crosseyed.

Dowding · « **Reply #56 on:** November 21, 2001, 03:59:00 PM »

Quote

Some of the others are actually the people we backed 20 yrs a go, the Mujahadin.

That's not much an argument for supporting them now, is it? You seem to be forgetting Bin Laden was CIA trained, too.

So what you're saying is that on the one hand we have barbarians and on the other hand we have... yes that's right - barbarians!

Not much of choice really, is it?

Quote

and yes I think you are crosseyed.

You said that before. My 'unimaginative' comment was spot on it would seem.

Udie · « **Reply #57 on:** November 21, 2001, 04:19:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:

You said that before. My 'unimaginative' comment was spot on it would seem.

man what are you some kind of idiot? I take it back your not crosseyed your completely blind my friend. What part of harboring the killers of 5000 dead Americans do you not understand? Are you really that dense or are you just trolling?

Dowding · « **Reply #58 on:** November 21, 2001, 04:32:00 PM »

Read my posts again. I didn't disagree with the fact that the Taliban were/are harbouring Bin Laden - I was saying the NA are equally as bad. In every way. We shouldn't try to pretend the NA are somehow more humane than the Taliban, to justify our support for them. They're all greedy, self-serving bastards who couldn't care less about human rights.

I'm not particularly sharp, but in your hurry to 'vent', the above seemed to have passed your great intellect by. Chill.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Toad · « **Reply #59 on:** November 21, 2001, 05:40:00 PM »

The world is not a static place. People change, situations change most everything changes and evolves.

The fact that we did or did not support someone or some group 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago is not in and of itself proof of anything. Not proof of wisdom nor proof of ignorance.

The bottom line is this: given any situation, you analyse it, review your options and make the best choice you can AT THAT TIME.

It may later prove out that it wasn't a real good choice or that it was, in fact, an excellent choice. You rarely, if ever, know the outcome at the moment you have to make the decision.

Triumphs result from such decision making. Disasters as well.

Those of you who like to "armchair general" 20 years after the fact... pah. You weren't there. You're second guessing the guy who was there, without the attendant pressures he had, without the "fog of war", without any RESPONSIBILITY for the results.

SOMETHING had to be done THEN. Plans were laid, choices were made. Some turn out, some don't. This leads to NEW situations and you have to make more choices... and so it goes.

Right now, SOMETHING has to be done about Saddam Hussein and his program that is developing and stockpiling weapons of mass distruction.

I'm pretty sure the US is going to do something.

All the rest will probably sit in the bleachers and complain. But they won't get in the game themselves. 20 years later, while they still sleep safe in their beds, they'll tell us how we could have done it better.