Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bjlong]

1) We need to gas the whole region with some kind of relaxants. I support Israel keeping their holy land they were given back. That's it. The only thing I am certain of about Palestine is that I am amused they haven't been able to take the land back. As Servant Corps is apparently more on top of current events than I am, talk to him.

Sure they do. Fatah currently support the two-state solution. Hamas offically doesn't, but it has stated that they will accept the two-state solution if such a solution gets approved by a referendum of Palestianians and are willing to make cease-fires with Israel in the meantime. And polls shows that both Israelis and Palestianians support the idea of the two-state solution.

It's all the minor issues, such as Jewish settlements, East Jersasulm, and the right of return, that keep the issue fermenting.

And, of course, the focus on Palestine means that there are less focus on other terrorists such as the nationalist PKK (Kurdish terrorists attacking Turkey), the Maoists in Nepal and India, Chrisitan rebels in India, abortion bombers in USA, etc. This is a War on Terrorism, not the War on Islamic Fundmentalists.

Interesting. I was under the impression that Hamas was entirely against the two-state solution. I'll have to look at the situation more.

Also, I'd like to point out that the abortion bombers in the USA are few and far between compared to a lot of your examples. As a target, they're very low priority.

2)Depends on:
-Public perception of the groups. Which would gain voter support.
-Interests to us. Who controlling what territory/resources could benefit us?
Which of course could end with us supplying both sides (but the group that falls under the second query will win).

That's very Machevellian of you. Any thought as to how the arms-dealer image would follow us? And (hypothetically) you would support a villian with good PR over someone with better methods and intentions?

3)HUGE overbloated military spending that drained our surplus overseas right when a depression is overdue in response to a single attack that lead to the overthrowing of one dictator (how many to go now?) and terrible international relations... we really overreacted which is exactly what I think they wanted, horrible timing, but that was the last administration and can't be undone. Yes, civilians are concerned about economy right now. I'm renting out rooms because of it. Really, if they can keep the costs low enough, I don't care what we're doing overseas right now. We just can't do what we did again, and fortunately our new administration is not as insane and can understand that.

Sounds like you object more to the peak cost and the the timing than the bottom line, which isn't really a factor in a war of attrition. Seems to me, then, that with a little more time, we can safely step out of Iraq (save for the obligatory army base) and call this a success.

4) IE pressure from us for other nations to give into angry people's demands rather than us telling the angry people to shove it up their arse. Not necessarily the Mid East (would require us participating in genocide I think). More like us telling Britain to finally completely leave Northern Ireland already. Is this an acceptable solution or course of action that will ever be taken? Ha. I wish. But exactly that. Politics are fun when you can make a mockery. I know just enough to pretend that I know.

For the most part, countries try to make concessions to upset groups. Terrorism happens when a country can't or won't give the groups enough. Generally, terrorists are fringe groups supported by a disgruntled populace. Simply giving them what they want is difficult. For example, the Northern Ireland problem is compounded by a boatload of people in Dublin who want to remain part of the UK. Each case is unique, where simply giving in is very difficult to implement.

[Servant Corps]

I think I finally hit upon the solution to winning this War on Terrorism.

The US have an offical list of Terrorist Groups, but there have been pressure to remove some groups off that list. For example, there is a Ughir terrorist group that the United States have placed on that list, but that some people claim are actually are not terrorists and that the US placed the group on the list to appease China. The United States have also placed a socialist Muhjaidien terrorist group on the list, while the European Union recently removed that same group off the terrorist list. The United States was considering taking the Nepali Maoists off the List of Terrorist Groups after the Maoists signed a peace treaty and then get elected into the Nepali government, but then decided against doing so.

The list serves as an effective sanction on that group, which can harm that group but at the same time commit the United States to destroying that group in order to win the War. Many groups would likely benieft if they get removed from that list, since they no longer have to worry about the sanctions.

If the United States decide to begin 'de-classifying' certain groups, then that means the United States have to fight against less and less terrorist groups. The end result would be that the US would have an easier time destroying the few groups that it does consider 'terrorist'. Obivously, the US won't remove all Terrorist Groups from that list of Terrorist Groups, but if it removes most...it has an easier shot at destroying the few remaining groups on said list, rather than spreading its resources out.

The US could also use that list as a baraging tool, in a way of gaining more allies in this War on Terrorism. The US was able to get North Korea and Libya to cooperate by promising to remove these two nations from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

[RedKing]

This thread menaces with spikes of facepalm. 

The "War on Terror" is a rhetorical device and has never been about defeating all terrorist groups everywhere. Period. Maybe Dubya actually thought of going that far for about five minutes the first time he said it, but even he realized that was tilting at windmills.