Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
America only gets involved in doing the 'right thing' when they themselves have suffered. Pearl Harbour is a perfect example.
Venezuela & Miami? Pearl Harbour? The IRA?Why do you keep citing things that are 'like' the situation in Pakistan? In reality, none of them are 'like' what we have now, and they add no additional value to the discussion. What we have is a known and unique set of events that don't need any comparisons to understand.
If Harriet Harman looked like Catherine Jenkins, would you?
MX7 said:
Venezuela & Miami? Pearl Harbour? The IRA?
Why do you keep citing things that are 'like' the situation in Pakistan? In reality, none of them are 'like' what we have now, and they add no additional value to the discussion. What we have is a known and unique set of events that don't need any comparisons to understand.
If Harriet Harman looked like Catherine Jenkins, would you?
The examples being given are perfectly reasonable in context of the discussion. Why do you keep citing things that are 'like' the situation in Pakistan? In reality, none of them are 'like' what we have now, and they add no additional value to the discussion. What we have is a known and unique set of events that don't need any comparisons to understand.
If Harriet Harman looked like Catherine Jenkins, would you?
The first was a hypothetical example of whether the US would like similar treatment to that they dole out.
The second was in support of an assertion that the US only get involved when it suits them (neither an unreasonable assertion, nor frankly Foreign Policy approach as long as you don't try and paint yourself as the great defender of what's right).
The latter was to note that the US have as much history for harbouring/supporting terrorists as Pakistan does.
Why do you feel these are not reasonable?
(Not a massive fan of Catherine Jenkins especially. So no
).Murph7355 said:
DJRC said:
But to do what OBL did with AQ took over a decade of building the organisation, expertise, experience, knowledge and resources up and having OBL's personal fortune.
Small scale, individually resourced and funded, independant and uncoordinated groups are much easier to deal with on the Intel and Operational basis. To be successfully is a resource hungry mission.
But even though the man is dead, is the structure and ideology?Small scale, individually resourced and funded, independant and uncoordinated groups are much easier to deal with on the Intel and Operational basis. To be successfully is a resource hungry mission.
I think it's way, waaaaaay too premature to note "they're as good as done for" and "it will take decades for them to do something similar again" (paraphrasing).
DJRC said:
BUt Murph, the whole point of my last cpl of posts is noting the US operational aspect of how it is dealing with QA. It is grinding down the structure OBL put in place, from the top downwards, in effect taking out its Command and Control structure. Without that central aspect, AQ with lapse from the inside out as the various smaller groups no longer have that strong central control. The natural consequence will be for them to devolve back into their constituent groups with local resources.
Maybe, maybe not. Are we "grinding down" or "splintering"?The West do not have a good track record of dealing with ideology....
Only time will tell, but personally I don't believe the world is a safer place as a result of these actions. If I were to have to lean either way I'd say it's less safe.
MX7 said:
they add no additional value to the discussion.
Like this comment?MX7 said:
Daft.
Or this?MX7 said:
If Harriet Harman looked like Catherine Jenkins, would you?
The analogy I gave seems apt to both me & others. The examples I give are to back up my statements.If all you do is deride other peoples' comments then you can't possibly lose an argument in your opinion; keep up the good work.
RH
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff