Al Qaeda prison break

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ThePlayer, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,085
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +704
    Religion of peace baby. Anyway, I have heard that BO wants to free all of the Club Gitmo detainees too.
  2. uftaipan
    Offline

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,848
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +944
    Not so. In 2003, a few people, such as Anthony Zinni, understood that it was a dangerous possibility that needed to be mitigated. By 2006, when civil war actually appeared possible, many people claimed that they knew this to be a certainty in 2003, but none of them could back up their retroactive prophecies with any kind of documentation.

    And frankly this sort of thing happens all of the time: Look at all of the economists who predicted the tech bubble or housing bubble was going to burst after it already happened. People love saying, "See, I told you so" even when they didn't tell anyone so.

    Back to civil war. While it's possible, history really doesn't support that being the most likely course of action. Contrary to modern myth, Hussein's totalitarian rule was was not the only barrier to civil war in Iraq. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia have coexisted in relative peace for hundreds of years regardless of who was in charge in the area we now call Iraq. This is in contrast to, say, the Balkans where the different ethnic groups were always at each other throats going back to the Ottoman conquest. When the British ousted the Ottomans and invented Iraq during World War I, there was no civil war. In 1920, the Iraqis conducted a massive uprising against the British, but there was no civil war. When the British left after World War II, there was no civil war. When the Army overthrew and murdered the royal family in 1958, there was no civil war.

    If history is any indicator, the most likely thing (of a bad nature) that could happen in the near future is that the Iraqi Army, the most stable and organized institution in the country, will take power from the elected government (as has happened again in Egypt). The Army ruled Iraq to varying degrees from the 1930s until Hussein brought the armed forces to heel, using similar tactics of the Nazis and Soviets, in the late 1970s.
  3. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,842
    Likes Received:
    1,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,572
    Except for the ones that weren't.
  4. gatorchamps0607
    Offline

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    39,980
    Likes Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,710
    Yeah but they are now known as Free Syrian Army.
  5. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +737
    ^^^follow up to my last post:

    It's always easy to say we shouldn't have gotten involved in this or that war, because the casualties and cost of the war are easily tallied, visible, and easy to state.

    It's a much more speculative proposition to conjecture what would have happened had we not gotten involved in those wars.

    E.g.--say we didn't get involved in VN or Korea. How much of the world might be communitst now? Where would that have left us?

    e.g. 2--what would have happened if we hadn't attempted OIF, or Aghganistan? If AQ were allowed to spread with impunity? If SH were permitted to continue his reign, to forge further alliances with AQ, etc?

    The world could be much uglier.

    e.g. 3--for all the atrocities of WWII, what if we had not gotten involved in WWI? What if France and UK fallen to the Germans and the turks? Might a different evil altogether have been born? And our ability to fight it, significantly compromised, due to default in debt repayment by France and the UK?

    Just some thoughts....
  6. exiledgator
    Offline

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +1,818

    As you suggest, there's no use crying too much over spilt milk, but there was no Israel in any of your examples. Also, all those power shifts still involved a central controlling authority. Removing that authority in these hyper stressful times was a recipe for disaster.

    I have a neighbor, Jordanian national. He's a professor and has had the ear of past administrations on Middle East matters. He was very in tune with the reality on the ground in 2003. All that he warned me of, over beers one night, has come to pass.
  7. baygator1
    Offline

    baygator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,842
    Likes Received:
    1,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,572
    And dozens of other names, in dozens of countries around the globe.
  8. uftaipan
    Offline

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,848
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +944
    You speak much truth. Indeed, one the great ironies of our ill-advised entry into World War I was how much money the Entente powers owed our banks. The bankers and merchants certainly put pressure on Congress and the President to become involved in order to protect their investments. When Germany went full retard on unrestricted submarine operations in February 1917 that was the last straw. Wilson jumped in with both feet despite campaigning in 1916 on being the candidate who "keeps us out of war."

    Now here comes the irony: After the war was over, our illustrious allies refused to pay back their war loans. France and Britain said that the money was our generous contribution to the collective war effort, and since we only lost about 100,000 citizens (including those killed at sea and by the Spanish Flu) to their million a piece they didn't want to hear any more about it. So the federal government was forced to buy up all of the bad debt and impose it on the tax payers (sound familiar?).
  9. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +737
    ^^^oops. I didn't realize UK and France didn't pay anyway.

    Well--I suppose their freedom still represented something of significant value worth preserving, beyond what they owed--as in their value for trading, their strategic value as allies, and the like.

    Thank you for the correction.

    Edit/add on: and yes, sounds very familiar...
  10. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,466
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,258
    82, don't get me wrong, I agree with most everything you've posted here, but a small bone to pick: I would count the Korean War as a win for the same reasons we count Vietnam as a loss. We won the majority of the battles and the other side had far more casualties than we did, the only difference between the two is that in Korea, we won the strategic battle too: we stopped the communist advance and South Korea remained independent to this day.
  11. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    264
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +737
    ^^^Rev1: I agree with you in viewing Korea as a victory--I was saying that it is often viewed as loss, and offering that as 'even if that were the case' perspective. IOW, even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that Korea was a loss, in the larger picture, it was well worth the effort.

    The fact is, 'victory' was never declared as it ended in a cease fire--but the objective of the initial mission--to prevent communism from spreading into south korea--was accomplished, so it should have been a victory.

    Problem was, it was right at the dawn of the cold war, and the cease fire was entered into due to the chineese involvment, and their ties to Russia. Hence it was ended 'diplomatically', so as to avoid larger issues could easily have devolved the cold war, into World War III.

    But since there was no surrender, as with Japan and Germany, many viewed it as a loss, or the US quitting, not letting MacArthur do his thing, not getting the job done, etc, etc.

    VN was a much clearer case, where even the stated objective was not met.

    My point is simply that even if one views the outcomes of those two 'battles' as losses, in the larger scheme, it is inconsequential, because the ultimate objective--to stem the spread of communism--was achieved.

    ...and those results are much more difficult to see, show, report, or the like--than the casualties, money spent, etc, that are so easily and loudly touted by the folks who decry those efforts.

    Following on Taipan's point--the parallel is uncanny to the War on Terror--those opposed to the WOT efforts point to the costs of those wars, and the causulties, and claim it was stupid to ever enter either of those.

    ...yet we did neuter AQ, plant seeds of freedom in the middle east, and demonstrated to teh world that we were and are willing to fight for our interests.

    In the short term, it may appear that the WOT was a failure.

    IMO, that is a premature conclusion to jump to, as insufficient time has passed to know what dividends (or negative consequences) will ultimately come from those efforts.

    I remain optimistic that ulimately those efforts will yield dividends, and either way, I at least recall why we decided to pursue those efforts in the first place--and I'm not inclined to second guess those decisions.
  12. ThePlayer
    Online

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,054
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,580
    The French never pay, never apologize....and remain rude through the surrendering process. :artist:

Share This Page