China: We will trade with Iran, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Ryan]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/01/11/china_to_us_no_meddling_in_our_iran_biz/

BEIJING --China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a Chinese oil company's planned investment in an Iranian gas field.

[...]

[Ryan]

So this now begs the question, will China have anything to say if the USA or its allies (Israel) wants to attack Iran?

[RegBarc]

So this now begs the question, will China have anything to say if the USA or its allies (Israel) wants to attack Iran?
If they do, we can "warn" them not to meddle in our affairs. :2funny:

[pseudonym]

Yeah, let's invade Iran! That'll teach the Chinese to give us crap!

What could possibly go wrong?

[RegBarc]

Yeah, let's invade Iran! That'll teach the Chinese to give us crap!

What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not totally sure if you're responding to Ryan or me, but for the record, I'm not necessarily advocating a full-out invasion of Iran. I haven't devoted much time at all to see if it's feasible, let alone if it's tactically possible.

[JPriller]

I'm not totally sure if you're responding to Ryan or me, but for the record, I'm not necessarily advocating a full-out invasion of Iran. I haven't devoted much time at all to see if it's feasible, let alone if it's tactically possible.Have you devoted any time to wondering if it's actually a good idea?

[pseudonym]

Have you devoted any time to wondering if it's actually a good idea?
Come on, JP. There's no international relations problem that can't be solved by invading the country in question. That's a lynchpin of Bush's foreign policy.

[Ryan]

If they do, we can "warn" them not to meddle in our affairs. :2funny:

So if China says no and says that they'll cut off trading with the US, do you still think it's a good idea?

Remember that trade restrictions are what caused Kim Jong Il to apologize for the nuclear test.

[RegBarc]

Have you devoted any time to wondering if it's actually a good idea?
At this exact moment, no, it's not a good idea. But in the future, that could easily change. Iran itself, with the development of nuclear technology, has the potential to become the most dangerous country in the world.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Have you devoted any time to wondering if it's actually a good idea?
How about the scenario where it would be a good idea?

[JPriller]

How about the scenario where it would be a good idea?Do you have such a good-idea scenario in mind, or are you asking if I've considered how there could be one?

[RegBarc]

Do you have such a good-idea scenario in mind, or are you asking if I've considered how there could be one?
If there is a aggressive use of either crude nuclear weapons, or lots of conventional weapons, to move onto Israel; I'd consider that a good-idea to at the very least use whatever necessary means available to deter the Iranians from further advancing, or to stop the Iranians in their tracks.

[Mikkel_Knight]

If there is a aggressive use of either crude nuclear weapons, or lots of conventional weapons, to move onto Israel; I'd consider that a good-idea to at the very least use whatever necessary means available to deter the Iranians from further advancing, or to stop the Iranians in their tracks.
Unless you think that Iran should just be able to go willy-nilly throught the Middle East JP...

[JPriller]

If there is a aggressive use of either crude nuclear weapons, or lots of conventional weapons, to move onto Israel; I'd consider that a good-idea to at the very least use whatever necessary means available to deter the Iranians from further advancing, or to stop the Iranians in their tracks.If they attack an ally (Israel) of course we have to respond. But what's being pushed now among conservapundits is attacking Iran NOW, before they pose any actual threat.

You may recognize this brand of "realistic foreign policy" as the same one that brought us so much success in Iraq.

[RegBarc]

If they attack an ally (Israel) of course we have to respond. But what's being pushed now among conservapundits is attacking Iran NOW, before they pose any actual threat.

You may recognize this brand of "realistic foreign policy" as the same one that brought us so much success in Iraq.
The case for a preemptive strike on Iran isn't something I disagree with in and of itself, I am just not sure if it is feasible with the current military. Even a military at full strength (read: pre-Iraq liberation), I have my doubts. Iran is much larger in land area, and it is less ruled by a single dictator so much as it is ruled by religious ideology.

[JPriller]

Unless you think that Iran should just be able to go willy-nilly throught the Middle East JP...What is it you mean by "going willy-nilly"? Attacking other nations? No, we shouldn't allow that. But they aren't attacking other nations, the most they're doing is funding Hezbolla to harass Israel and supporting the Shia in Iraq against the Sunnis, and we've certainly done that sort of thing ourselves (think "Iran-Contra").

Iran has an unpopular government and a fairly young and Westernized population that doesn't mindlessly hate us, bombing them without clear provocation seems like a big step backwards for our Middle East goals instead of any kind of progress.

I realize I'm probably uselessly shouting to the winds, here, however. Far too many of the people supporting George (and who he therefore listens to almost exclusively) seem to think our current "bull in the China shop" problem in the Middle East is that we need to send in more and bigger bulls.

[RegBarc]

What is it you mean by "going willy-nilly"? Attacking other nations? No, we shouldn't allow that. But they aren't attacking other nations, the most they're doing is funding Hezbolla to harass Israel and supporting the Shia in Iraq against the Sunnis, and we've certainly done that sort of thing ourselves (think "Iran-Contra").

Honest question: Do you believe that Iran's funding of Hezbolla is not just harrassing, but also it is Iran funding terrorism in Israel and as well waging a proxy way against Israel?

[JPriller]

Honest question: Do you believe that Iran's funding of Hezbolla is not just harrassing, but also it is Iran funding terrorism in Israel and as well waging a proxy way against Israel?No, Hezbolla isn't large or powerful enough to do anything but harass Israel. It poses no threat whatsoever to their sovereignty or existence.

One could easily make the case that Hezbolla is a terrorist organization, they don't care at all if they kill innocent civilians, but we've supported some similarly nasty folk in pursuit of our national interests in the past. Why are we allowed to do it but other nations are not? Just because we're the "good guys"?

[Makita]

So this now begs the question, will China have anything to say if the USA or its allies (Israel) wants to attack Iran?
If we can't interfere with your international policy, you better keep your nose out of ours.

Mind you, I do not think we should be salivating over Iran at this time, even though we are in the neighborhood at the moment.

[Jobeth66]

If we're going to attack another country, we need to do it the right way.

Articles of War, approved by Congress. Not this 'pre-emptive defense' BS. If we attack a sovereign nation with no provocation, that's starting a war. If we're going to start a war, then let's call it what it is. And then let's do it the way it's SUPPOSED to be done.

Because if we can't make a case for starting a war, then we need to find another way to get things done.

[RegBarc]

If we're going to attack another country, we need to do it the right way.

Articles of War, approved by Congress. Not this 'pre-emptive defense' BS. If we attack a sovereign nation with no provocation, that's starting a war. If we're going to start a war, then let's call it what it is. And then let's do it the way it's SUPPOSED to be done.

Because if we can't make a case for starting a war, then we need to find another way to get things done.
I think that we can have our cake and eat it too, in the case of declaring war and pre-emptive strikes.

For instance, if articles of war are proposed in Congress, they can say that "we declare war on the country of X in order to defend ourselves against their inevitable and immediate aggression".

[JPriller]

I think that we can have our cake and eat it too, in the case of declaring war and pre-emptive strikes.

For instance, if articles of war are proposed in Congress, they can say that "we declare war on the country of X in order to defend ourselves against their inevitable and immediate aggression".Is it your actual intention to come up with these eerie historical parallels? This one sounds a little like September 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident).

[RegBarc]

Is it your actual intention to come up with these eerie historical parallels? This one sounds a little like September 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident).
No, it's not my intention.

But, since you're comparing my ideas to Himmler's, we can go back in time and say if we declared war on Afghanistan in 1995, we wouldn't had our asses handed to us on 9-11. Or, even better, if we didn't withdraw from Somalia in 1993, Osama bin Laden wouldn't have been envigorated to attack an America since he would have known we don't like or stand conflict.

Himmler and Hitler had their own issues and problems, pre-emptive strikes or not.

[trojanrabbit]

Yeah, let's invade Iran! That'll teach the Chinese to give us crap!

What could possibly go wrong?

But we're ASKING for the crap. The Chinese are only obliging us by giving us what we want.

[pseudonym]

No, it's not my intention.

But, since you're comparing my ideas to Himmler's, we can go back in time and say if we declared war on Afghanistan in 1995, we wouldn't had our asses handed to us on 9-11.
Or maybe we would have lost there (the USSR didn't have such an easy time of it, as I recall, and we aren't meeting with resounding success right now), and Bin Laden would have become even more influential and ambitious, attacking us earlier and harder.

We're in the middle of one preemptive war that's going terribly. Is now the time to start proposing new ones?

[RegBarc]

Is now the time to start proposing new ones?
No, it's not - hence me saying that specifically earlier. Go up a couple of posts and you'll find me saying we tactically can't do it right now.

[Jobeth66]

I disagree that we can have our cake & eat it too. We need to have a good reason to start a war. The last one we started - the FIRST one we've EVER started - we started on the basis of either bad intel or worse, depending on who you listen to. We need more justification than 'they might shoot at us first'. Does that mean we might get attacked? Yes. Of course it does. But that's the price you pay for being a nation of laws.

[JPriller]

No, it's not my intention.Ah. A happy accident then.

But, since you're comparing my ideas to Himmler's, I wasn't comparing your idea to Himmler's, I was giving you an historical example of drumming up a threat - something the conservapundits are busy as bees working on right now with Iran, I keep waiting for one to inadvertently recycle that remark about Rice made once about mushroom clouds - and then justifying a preemptive attack based on it.

we can go back in time and say if we declared war on Afghanistan in 1995, we wouldn't had our asses handed to us on 9-11. Maybe. Or maybe we'd have provoked a bigger attack somewhere down the line, one with more popular Muslim support around the world, and not even had the sympathy of the world to squander as George squandered 9/11.

We can play "what if" all day. Can you show me an example of pre-emptive attack on a drummed-up danger that actually WAS a good thing for the nation doing the drumming?

[RegBarc]

I disagree that we can have our cake & eat it too. We need to have a good reason to start a war. The last one we started - the FIRST one we've EVER started - we started on the basis of either bad intel or worse, depending on who you listen to. We need more justification than 'they might shoot at us first'. Does that mean we might get attacked? Yes. Of course it does. But that's the price you pay for being a nation of laws.
Well, the Spanish-American war was something we started (the U.S.S. Maine incident was something we were advantageous with and was the spring-board for Yellow Journalism). But thanks to that war, I have Iris. :D

[pseudonym]

No, it's not - hence me saying that specifically earlier. Go up a couple of posts and you'll find me saying we tactically can't do it right now.
You said that could easily change. Since there's no easy way for our tactical situation to change right now (we're getting more immersed in Iraq, not less, and no one's suggesting we reduce our presence in Afghanistan), you seem to be leaving the door as far open as you can.

[RegBarc]

You said that could easily change. Since there's no easy way for our tactical situation to change right now (we're getting more immersed in Iraq, not less, and no one's suggesting we reduce our presence in Afghanistan), you seem to be leaving the door as far open as you can.
My intent isn't to leave the door as wide open, conversely, it's to make sure the door is not closed. Bill Kristol, God bless him, may be the archetypal Neoconservative, but I just don't agree with him at this time.

[aindik]

No, Hezbolla isn't large or powerful enough to do anything but harass Israel. It poses no threat whatsoever to their sovereignty or existence.

Replace "Israel" with "United States" and replace "Hezbolla" with "al Qaeda."

The second sentence is still true (at least, it's as true as it is the way it's originally written with Israel and Hezbolla). Is the first? If you believe that Hezbolla is not waging war with Israel (because your definition of "war" requires a threat to sovereignty or existence), do you also believe that al Qaeda is not waging war with the United States?

[JPriller]

Replace "Israel" with "United States" and replace "Hezbolla" with "al Qaeda."Okay, say that we make this substitution. Is Al Qaeda something that can threaten U.S. sovereignty or its existence? No. It can harass us, but it's no threat to our nationhood. I realize there are some people who like to pretend differently, to make it sound as if we're in some major struggle for our very existence, but that's nonsense.

The second sentence is still true (at least, it's as true as it is the way it's originally written with Israel and Hezbolla). Is the first? If you believe that Hezbolla is not waging war with Israel (because your definition of "war" requires a threat to sovereignty or existence), do you also believe that al Qaeda is not waging war with the United States?Al Qaeda is "waging war" with the United States in the same way we "wage war" on poverty. They can no more eradicate us than we can eradicate poverty. All they can do is harass us. This is why they have to employ terrorism, as it amplifies the effect of their harassment, trying to make us do more harm to ourselves through fear than they can possibly accomplish themselves.

George and Co. have this harm-causing well under way, btw, throwing out bits and pieces of the Constitution they find inconvenient. Hopefully it will not take us as long to repair all the harm George's folks have done us as it did to clean up and rebuild after 9/11, but that remains to be seen.

[aindik]

Okay, say that we make this substitution. Is Al Qaeda something that can threaten U.S. sovereignty or its existence? No. It can harass us, but it's no threat to our nationhood. I realize there are some people who like to pretend differently, to make it sound as if we're in some major struggle for our very existence, but that's nonsense.

Al Qaeda is "waging war" with the United States in the same way we "wage war" on poverty. They can no more eradicate us than we can eradicate poverty. All they can do is harass us. This is why they have to employ terrorism, as it amplifies the effect of their harassment, trying to make us do more harm to ourselves through fear than they can possibly accomplish themselves.

George and Co. have this harm-causing well under way, btw, throwing out bits and pieces of the Constitution they find inconvenient. Hopefully it will not take us as long to repair all the harm George's folks have done us as it did to clean up and rebuild after 9/11, but that remains to be seen.

So you're sticking to your definition that Thing A is only "waging war" on Thing B if Thing A has a chance of causing Thing B to cease existing. Nobody else that doesn't fit that definition is "waging war," ever?

[JPriller]

So you're sticking to your definition that Thing A is only "waging war" on Thing B if Thing A has a chance of causing Thing B to cease existing. Nobody else that doesn't fit that definition is "waging war," ever?I think the term "war" is thrown around far too casually. "War on Poverty", "War on Terror", etc.

I would not absolutely require that Thing A be able to make Thing B stop existing, but Thing A DOES, in my estimation, have to have the power to force Thing B to conform to its wishes - i.e. to cede it territory, to pay it in treasure, to begin acting in ways Thing A desires or cease acting in ways it does not.

Al Qaeda has no power to make us accede to its wishes. It just doesn't. Nor does Hezbolla have that power over Israel. All they can do is try to scare us or Israel into doing what they want. We can, and do, tell them to bugger off.

That's not "war", if you ask me. If you have a definition of war that does take in Hezbolla or Al Qaeda I would be interested in hearing it.

[aindik]

If you have a definition of war that does take in Hezbolla or Al Qaeda I would be interested in hearing it.

Off the top of my head:
Organized and continued armed conflict against a defined target.

[pseudonym]

My intent isn't to leave the door as wide open, conversely, it's to make sure the door is not closed. Bill Kristol, God bless him, may be the archetypal Neoconservative, but I just don't agree with him at this time.
The problem is that we really have closed the door to meaningful military intervention in Iran, other than airstrikes, by overextending ourselves in our current preemptive war. Sure, we could have Israel send in troops, but the reality is, if that happens, we're going to have to back them up with our own troops sooner or later.

Even if I was inclined to view invading Iran as an appropriate response to their sabre rattling and support of Hezzbollah and/or Iraqi insurgents (which, obviously, I'm not) we're in no position to pull it off, nor will we be anytime soon. And we burned the international support bridge years ago.

[Mikkel_Knight]

I think the term "war" is thrown around far too casually. "War on Poverty", "War on Terror", etc.

I would not absolutely require that Thing A be able to make Thing B stop existing, but Thing A DOES, in my estimation, have to have the power to force Thing B to conform to its wishes - i.e. to cede it territory, to pay it in treasure, to begin acting in ways Thing A desires or cease acting in ways it does not.

Al Qaeda has no power to make us accede to its wishes. It just doesn't. Nor does Hezbolla have that power over Israel. All they can do is try to scare us or Israel into doing what they want. We can, and do, tell them to bugger off.

That's not "war", if you ask me. If you have a definition of war that does take in Hezbolla or Al Qaeda I would be interested in hearing it.
So because they have absolutely no chance of overthrowing the American government, or invading any of our states/territories, the U.S. should just roll over and let them make acts of war against us, our States, territories, and allies.

Clarification?

[JPriller]

So because they have absolutely no chance of overthrowing the American government, or invading any of our states/territories, the U.S. should just roll over and let them make acts of war against us, our States, territories, and allies.

Clarification?I didn't say we had to let them do it, and I can't see where in anything I've said you could have gotten that idea (feel free to point out anywhere you believe I did). I said it wasn't a "war".

[RegBarc]

While this isn't an endorsement of their message, the guys at Cox and Forkum (http://www.coxandforkum.com) came up with an expectingly witty cartoon:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.01.16.DeadBall-X.gif

I've talked to Forkum on a number of occasions and they are genuinely good guys - used their cartoon in the Ed-Op section around 60 times and it was worth it considering they wouldn't charge me.

[Mikkel_Knight]

I didn't say we had to let them do it, and I can't see where in anything I've said you could have gotten that idea (feel free to point out anywhere you believe I did). I said it wasn't a "war".
Ok... it's not a "war".

So you have no problem with someone making acts of war (bombings, financial support to terrorist organizations, etc.) against the U.S., it's States, territories, and allies because it's not really "war".

Tell us more about this "war" definition of yours.

What I'm seeing is, in your eyes, "war" is only something that can either have territorial loss, and because there isn't a nation in the world that could do that to the U.S., we shouldn't be concerned at all.

Here's the flat-out question.

What is your opinion/definition on/of the word "war". That way, I can either dismiss you as someone who, never having been in the military, doesn't quite "get" what "war" actually is, or form another question for more information.

[JPriller]

Ok... it's not a "war".That's what I said, yes.

So you have no problem with someone making acts of war (bombings, financial support to terrorist organizations, etc.) against the U.S., it's States, territories, and allies because it's not really "war".Wherever did I say THAT?

Tell us more about this "war" definition of yours.What would you like to know? I'd be happy to answer any questions about it you have. You can also answer one for me - where did you ever get the notion that because a given conflict doesn't meet the definition for "a war" it means everything about it is acceptable, "no problem"?

Spousal abuse isn't "war". Neither is rape, or drunk driving, or fat people wearing spandex. Does that mean you don't have any problems with any of those?

What I'm seeing is, in your eyes, "war" is only something that can either have territorial loss, and because there isn't a nation in the world that could do that to the U.S., we shouldn't be concerned at all.There you go again, if I might quote Saint Ronald of California. Wherever did I say we should not be concerned?

I'd also note territorial loss isn't the sole or defining requirement - one party has to be able, through the application of force, to compel the other party to give them something. Al Qaeda can't force us to give them anything. They know it, we know it. All they can do is scare us into doing it ourselves.

Here's the flat-out question.

What is your opinion/definition on/of the word "war". That way, I can either dismiss you as someone who, never having been in the military, doesn't quite "get" what "war" actually is, or form another question for more information.I already gave my definition for "war", here:

I would not absolutely require that Thing A be able to make Thing B stop existing, but Thing A DOES, in my estimation, have to have the power to force Thing B to conform to its wishes - i.e. to cede it territory, to pay it in treasure, to begin acting in ways Thing A desires or cease acting in ways it does not.Al Qaeda simply does not have this power over us. Do you believe that it does?

I'm also uncertain why having been in the military, unless if one had been a general or some other high-level strategist that required the study of it, gives one any better an idea of what defines "war". One can experience what war and combat is like in the military, but imagining that this automatically conveys an understanding of what defines war would be faulty reasoning. Do the people that experienced Katrina somehow automatically better "get" the science of meteorology than any who did not?

[aindik]

JPriller: Was 9/11 an Act of War? Was Pearl Harbor?

[JPriller]

JPriller: Was 9/11 an Act of War? No. It was an act of terrorism.

Was Pearl Harbor?Yes. Japan wanted to eliminate or severely cripple our Pacific fleet, so that we could not (as they feared would happen) interfere with their campaign of conquest in Asia. It was one of those pre-emptive attack thingies.

Al Qaeda may want us to do things, but they have no power to make us do things. Japan did have that power, and tried to use it. They ultimately lost due to underestimating how quickly we could rebuild our naval strength, and of course our luck that the aircraft carriers weren't in port at the time (no one realized at the time, Japan or us, that carriers were going to eclipse the battleship as the backbone of modern naval power).

[Mikkel_Knight]

No. It was an act of terrorism.

Yes. Japan wanted to eliminate or severely cripple our Pacific fleet, so that we could not (as they feared would happen) interfere with their campaign of conquest in Asia. It was one of those pre-emptive attack thingies.

Al Qaeda may want us to do things, but they have no power to make us do things. Japan did have that power, and tried to use it. They ultimately lost due to underestimating how quickly we could rebuild our naval strength, and of course our luck that the aircraft carriers weren't in port at the time (no one realized at the time, Japan or us, that carriers were going to eclipse the battleship as the backbone of modern naval power).
Japan didn't have the power to make us do anything anymore than Al Qaeda does. Fits the same way...

If Japan had the power to make us do something (by a surprise attack), then Al Qaeda did the same thing on 9/11, USS Cole, and various embassy bombings...

Japan may have had more numbers, but their tactics were no different than those of Al Qaeda on 9/11, the USS Cole, and the various embassy bombings...

Are we in danger of Al Qaeda taking over? No. Are we at war (and have they declared war on us)? Yes.

[JPriller]

Japan didn't have the power to make us do anything anymore than Al Qaeda does. Fits the same way...Japan had (and used) the power to severely cripple our Pacific fleet. They figured with that out of the picture they could then do what they wished in the Pacific, that we would be powerless to oppose them or that whatever we scrape together in the way of sea power they could crush.

They were wrong only because they underestimated our capacity to rebuild after the attack, not because they lacked power.

If Japan had the power to make us do something (by a surprise attack), then Al Qaeda did the same thing on 9/11, USS Cole, and various embassy bombings...9/11 and the embassy bombings did nothing whatsoever to reduce our military capacity, and the USS Cole attack did next to nothing (it was one ship, and we have thousands - heck, just our Coast Guard is the 4th largest navy in the world).

All they can do is scare us into not responding. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, was designed to force us into conceding the Pacific because we could not do anything to stop them whether we wanted to or not.

That's the important thing about "make" in "making us do something". Japan could take away our ability. Al Qaeda can only frighten us into inaction. We know it, they know it, that's why they employ terrorism instead of straight-up combat, because they lack the power to make us do anything.

Japan may have had more numbers, but their tactics were no different than those of Al Qaeda on 9/11, the USS Cole, and the various embassy bombings...The only thing the tactics have in common is surprise. Pearl Harbor was a conventional military attack on military assets that was met with conventional military defense (what could be put together quickly at the time, which was little). And Japan was not some shadowy amalgam of underground terrorist cells but a conventional nation that we could and did declare war on, and go on to defeat using conventional military means. They attacked us knowing they could be hurt in return - as Yamamoto is claimed to have said, "we have awakened a sleeping giant" - they couldn't scurry off to hide to avoid whatever retribution we could muster.

Are we in danger of Al Qaeda taking over? No. Are we at war (and have they declared war on us)? Yes.I'm sure they'd like nothing more than to destroy us and fully beleive they've "declared war" on us. But that's a "we will do whatever we can to harm you" definition of war, not much different from our "war on poverty" or "war on drugs". Not what I'd call a real war.

[Mikkel_Knight]

So wars can only be against our military.

Intersting concept - one that I find incorrect, but hey, you're intitled...

As for the "nothing" of the USS Cole - I'm sure the 17 dead and their families would beg to differ. Just the same as the thousands of "nothing" on 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda attacked us knowing that they could be hurt in return as well... just because they're not a Soverign nation doesn't change that...

Yes, 12/7 was designed to eliminate us from the pacific, but I would argue that 9/11 was designed to cripple America into eliminating us from the Middle East and our foreign policy. Just because it didn't come from a country's military, doesn't make it any different (other than who/where to retaliate)

[JPriller]

So wars can only be against our military.No, wars can and have been against civilian populations - but again those are meant to obtain something such as land or treasure, or to force concessions. Al Qaeda cannot force us to concede anything.

As for the "nothing" of the USS Cole - I'm sure the 17 dead and their families would beg to differ. Just the same as the thousands of "nothing" on 9/11 attacks.You seem determined to misconstrue what I say.

I did not say that the loss of life in any of the attacks on us was "nothing", just as I did not say that because I think our conflict with Al Qaeda does not amount to war that we shouldn't do anything about it and I had no problem with anything they did to us.

I said the attacks on us did not reduce our military capacity (with the exception of the USS Cole, which was a minor loss of force). And they did not. They removed none of our options, forced us into no action or inaction we did not decide on for ourselves. If you believe I am wrong in that, you can argue that point.

Al Qaeda attacked us knowing that they could be hurt in return as well... just because they're not a Soverign nation doesn't change that...There is a huge difference between being a conventional nation and being a shadowy underground group that hides itself among civilian populations, just as there is a huge difference between a soldier fighting in uniform and a "unlawful enemy combatant".

Yes, 12/7 was designed to eliminate us from the pacific, but I would argue that 9/11 was designed to cripple America into eliminating us from the Middle East and our foreign policy. Just because it didn't come from a country's military, doesn't make it any different (other than who/where to retaliate)It may have been Al Qaeda's desire to cripple us, though I've also heard Bin Laden actually wanted to provoke an all-out war of civilizations because he thinks he can win it. But in any case 9/11 could not make us do anything, and did nothing at all like cripple us except perhaps with unreasoning fear.

[Philosofy]

JP, can Al Queda do anything to us that can be considered by you to be an act of war? And if not, does that give the President the right to do anything to Al Queda, since it won't technically be a war?

[pgogborn]

Recent wars that the US have fought have tended to last only a few years and have between opponents using similar weapons.

Just because the Qaeda franchise is taking a long term view, is ready to fight at a low intensity but for many decades, just because the weapons used are asymmetrical, does not mean that it is not warfare.

One of the reasons why al-Qaeda is fighting is to reduce the commercial/cultural/military presence of the US in the Middle East. I would not be surprised if in his State of the Union message President Bush says something about plans to reduce dependance on foreign oil. I would not be surprised that if President Bush makes such an announcement some Al Qaeda types will see it as a concession to their use of force.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Alright JP... since you have convinced yourself that Al Qaeda can do no wrong towards the US, what do you think should be done?

Based on what I've read, I would naturally assume that you just want to roll over and wet yourself hoping that nothing happens to your sorry ass or nobody that you know/love.

Am I close?

If not, quit beating around the bush and say what you think should be done - I challenge you to actually put your feet on the ground and come up with a solution, because everything else that you've put forth has shown that the color of the sky in your world is pink and your feet are nowhere near the ground because your head is in the clouds.

/gets popcorn

[JPriller]

JP, can Al Queda do anything to us that can be considered by you to be an act of war? It's possible, sure. But they don't have the power to do anything close to that right now.

I think "act of war" is as abused as "war" is, btw. I'm reminded of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, where Bugs would trick Elmer Fudd into shooting Daffy and then Daffy would say, "of course you know, rabbit, this means war".

And if not, does that give the President the right to do anything to Al Queda, since it won't technically be a war?What kind of "anything" are you talking about? Do you mean like "torture", that kind of anything? No, that's still out. Or do you mean military action? Yes, I think George has the right to go after Al Qaeda without a congressional declaration of war.

[JPriller]

Alright JP... since you have convinced yourself that Al Qaeda can do no wrong towards the USThere you go again. Please show me where I said anything any reasonable person could possibly mistake for me saying Al Qaeda "can do no wrong toward the US"? I'd like to see it. What was it?

what do you think should be done?I think we should deprive them of safe havens by forcing failed states to turn them over or eject them, I think we should attack their camps wherever we find them, and I think we need to do more modernize the Middle East so as to deprive them of easy recruits. Kill the ones we can without making any more through ham-handed arrogance and ignorance and incompetence, and try to work it so no more or at least a lot fewer get hatched.

Based on what I've read, I would naturally assume that you just want to roll over and wet yourself hoping that nothing happens to your sorry ass or nobody that you know/love.

Am I close?Nope, yer ice cold there, Doc.

If not, quit beating around the bush and say what you think should be done - I challenge you to actually put your feet on the ground and come up with a solution, because everything else that you've put forth has shown that the color of the sky in your world is pink and your feet are nowhere near the ground because your head is in the clouds.

/gets popcornYou might have noticed that what we've been discussing here is what a reasonable definition of "war" is. You're welcome to disagree with mine, that's fine, and/or propose your own. But if you want to argue with what I'm saying, you need to argue with what I actually say instead of straw-men you invent to oh-so-bravely then knock down.

[Mikkel_Knight]

There you go again. Please show me where I said anything any reasonable person could possibly mistake for me saying Al Qaeda "can do no wrong toward the US"? I'd like to see it. What was it?

I think we should deprive them of safe havens by forcing failed states to turn them over or eject them, I think we should attack their camps wherever we find them, and I think we need to do more modernize the Middle East so as to deprive them of easy recruits. Kill the ones we can without making any more through ham-handed arrogance and ignorance and incompetence, and try to work it so no more or at least a lot fewer get hatched.

Nope, yer ice cold there, Doc.

You might have noticed that what we've been discussing here is what a reasonable definition of "war" is. You're welcome to disagree with mine, that's fine, and/or propose your own. But if you want to argue with what I'm saying, you need to argue with what I actually say instead of straw-men you invent to oh-so-bravely then knock down.
If you'd actually discuss things instead of all the time saying "where did I say that" or "I never said that", it'd be much easier to have said discussion.

It's difficult when your words are open to a shit-ton of interpretations because of your pretty mouth. Come out and say what it is, and don't pussyfoot around. Do that, and I can actually have a conversation with you without trying to figure out what the fuck you meant since this isn't the first time that your previous words have left me with innuendos and uncertanties as to what you actually stand for and believe.

Now, to actually get to your reply, "deprive them of safe havens".

Alright Mr. President - how do you think that should be done. Should we sit down with their ambassador and have tea and crumpets and ask that they not allow their camps there? This is the real world, and it requires some dirty work. Asking states to close down terrorist camps holds no threat whatsoever because the camp can "close up shop" and disappear in a matter of hours and moved to a different location. Locals can be greased to look the other way...

Do I like your idea? Absolutely. That would be nice in a perfect world. Just in case you haven't noticed though, we don't live in that perfect world (look outside, I swear it's true). To quote the cliche:

We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Yeah, it'd be great if "they" would just turn terrorists over, but why would they do that? "They" are being funded by them, politically greased by them. Often times, deep down, they (Govt) even agree with "them" and want "them" to succeed because it's something that they as a Govt would never be able to accomplish.

Yeah - we need to enlighten the Middle East. But, the Govt's in power actively fight against that. Why? Because it suits them to do so. It allows them to remain in power. Ultimately, "they" are afraid of the freedoms and power the individual gains by education, religious, and political freedom that are the foundations of American greatness.

We can't come in and spend billions of dollars in a country where we aren't wanted. We need to run the country first and then rebuild it. 'Cause if we give the current govt's the $$, they do what Saddam did and build multiple billion-dollar palaces and leave the common individual eating dirt off of the street all the while filling their minds with how America (and the West) has done this to them and is to blame.

It'd be great if you could come up with a real-world idea instead of one that would only work in the perfect world.

[JPriller]

If you'd actually discuss things instead of all the time saying "where did I say that" or "I never said that", it'd be much easier to have said discussion.Think of how much easier it would be if you didn't invent things for me to have said. For example, somehow getting the notion that if I didn't think our conflict with Al Qaeda amounted to "war" that I was fine with anything they wanted to do to us, or that because I said the terrorist attacks on us did nothing to diminish our military capacity that the loss of life in them was "nothing". Do you believe yourself capable of addressing what is said, rather than wild conclusions you eagerly jump to?

It's difficult when your words are open to a shit-ton of interpretations because of your pretty mouth. No, it's difficult when you somehow leap to the conclusion that a conflict not being a "war" means nothing about it is wrong or we should do nothing about it. That's not a problem of "pretty words". That's nothing but a problem with comprehension.

Come out and say what it is, and don't pussyfoot around. I have come out and said "what it is", all throughout this conversation. What I've gotten in return is illogical leaps and bounds, as if you are purposefully determined to misconstrue every remark I make.

Do that, and I can actually have a conversation with you without trying to figure out what the fuck you meant since this isn't the first time that your previous words have left me with innuendos and uncertanties as to what you actually stand for and believe.Find me even one innuendo in anything I've said in this thread and I'd be happy to discuss it. I have made none. I've consistently stated my opinions on what I think a working definition of "war" is, and you've consistently invented positions for me - that we should do nothing to Al Qaeda, that everything they do to us is fine, that loss of life means nothing.

If you think I've stated something unclearly, ask for clarification. Don't jump to the wildest hare-brained conclusion you can invent and then demand I defend it.

Now, to actually get to your reply, "deprive them of safe havens".

Alright Mr. President - how do you think that should be done. Should we sit down with their ambassador and have tea and crumpets and ask that they not allow their camps there? This is the real world, and it requires some dirty work. Asking states to close down terrorist camps holds no threat whatsoever because the camp can "close up shop" and disappear in a matter of hours and moved to a different location. Locals can be greased to look the other way...All of this is true, and you might note with a re-read of my post that nowhere did I say that a tea and crumpets discussion even be the first thing that we try, let alone as far as we should go. If they refuse, we obviously have to go farther. The Afghanistan model of what George did there following 9/11 with Al Qaeda and the Taliban is perfectly acceptable (I'd just have to insist we not abandon the hunt early next time).

Yeah - we need to enlighten the Middle East. But, the Govt's in power actively fight against that. Why? Because it suits them to do so. It allows them to remain in power. Ultimately, "they" are afraid of the freedoms and power the individual gains by education, religious, and political freedom that are the foundations of American greatness.Of course the governments - and the extremists - fight any form of modernization. But because something is hard doesn't make it problem we can ignore, does it? So long as there are swamps of corruption and oppression and extremism in the Middle East we're going to have a terrorism problem. Whacking the swamp with a shovel, no matter how mightily, will not make it go away. We have to drain it. It will not be easy, and the people who like it being a swamp will resist. But we still have to do it.

It'd be great if you could come up with a real-world idea instead of one that would only work in the perfect world.Think of how wonderful it would be if you realized that there are no easy solutions in this world you're happy to acknowledge is far from perfect.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Think of how wonderful it would be if you realized that there are no easy solutions in this world you're happy to acknowledge is far from perfect.
You just said that the way to "fight" this "war" is to get other governments to hand over known terrorists and shut them down from operating inside their borders.

Who's got the pie in the sky thinking?

For the record, we've been trying that for decades and it hasn't quite worked out yet now has it?

How long do we go the diplomacy route before it becomes a joke?

10 years? 20 years? 50 years? How much damage can be done in that amount of time?

It didn't work with Iraq, and it certainly doesn't work with the ineffectiveness and toothlessness of the UN.

[JPriller]

You just said that the way to "fight" this "war" is to get other governments to hand over known terrorists and shut them down from operating inside their borders.I said that was one of the things we had to do, yes. I also said we had to attack their camps wherever we find them. That would include when they are within sovereign nations that can not or will not give them up. What did you imagine I was suggesting we attack them with, tea and crumpets?

Who's got the pie in the sky thinking?Since you ask, I believe that would be our president.

For the record, we've been trying that for decades and it hasn't quite worked out yet now has it?No, we haven't been trying that for decades. We have a history of doing damn little when attacked, going back to the terrorist attacks on us in Lebanon under Reagan. And rather than championing modernization, we've backed one set of thugs we don't like against some thugs we like even less - do I need to find you that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? How about the time we secretly sold arms to our supposedly sworn-enemy Iran? Do you know why the Shiites didn't greet us with flowers and candy when Saddam was deposed? Because they were left out there hanging after GW1, to be massacred when they tried to rise up while we did nothing.

How long do we go the diplomacy route before it becomes a joke?For such an attempt to be long enough it would first have to have begun. Saddam let inspectors back in, who found nothing, and George's people said that just meant he was hiding it in violation of UN resolutions so we had to attack anyway. Iran sent us clear indications they'd like to improve relations back in 2003, but George's folks ignored them - they thought once Iraq was a flowers and candy festival Iran's people would rise up and the problem would be solved. It now turns out Syria and Israel had been holding secret talks for peace, that got derailed when Iran-funded Hezbolla started a fight with Israel. Where is this "diplomacy" we've supposedly tried?