Tony Blair, the new Churchill?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
Its interesting you say that, its like there is two entirely seperate levels to this. One in catching those who did 911. Two, solving the issue in the long term which relaly seems to be getting buggar all attention beyond what they may attack next week.

I'd say it's a 2-part process. The short term (finding bin Laden and his associates that may have been involved) and the long term (finding a way to achieve world peace).

The long term answer for September 11th is not going to be easy. It is going to force the United States and its allies to reexamine their policies toward lesser nations. It will also require an examination of conscience.

[Vogue State]

Taking down bin Laden is not sufficient. It is a distributed operation - not central controlled. Many top people must be taken down to destroy the network. This organization is much like Pablo Escabar's operation - just more international and not at war with the local authorities.

Great parallel, because when Escobar's organization was ``decapitated'' it served only to break up the rest of the organization into dozens of loosely connected groups. The monolithic cartel became what we have today; as you know there is more coke than ever in the U.S. and the prices are a fraction of what they were back then. Will all the sleepers who have already been trained and are now ``in position'' simply decide to get a job at McDonalds because the top dogs have been captured? One way or another, we are going to have to think of these people as well.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
The leader in Indonesia is Megawati - a lady.

Her last name is Sukarnoputri. I'm not sure how Indonesians refer to themselves though. I know that many of them still only have one name.

Taking down bin Laden is not sufficient. It is a distributed operation - not central controlled.

I'm aware of that. But I would wager that many, if not most, of his top associates are not in Afghanistan at this point; hence we are seeing arrests in places like Germany and Spain, and will probably see more. What roles those arrested play in al-Qaeda remains to be seen. If the US does invade Afghanistan and can pluck associates of bin Laden and/or other unrelated terrorists, that would certainly be good.

The point I was making is this: I hope that this entire situation can be resolved with as little fighting as possible, and in the quickest possible manner.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Vogue State
The monolithic cartel became what we have today; as you know there is more coke than ever in the U.S. and the prices are a fraction of what they were back then.

So what's the problem? More, cheaper, cocaine and the Inquirer sells a few papers on how Escobar gets whacked... looks like a win for everyone but Escobar. :-)

IMO, the solution to al-Queda has to be ruthless and complete. Not just execution of bin Laden, but that of everyone in the organization with any clue of what's going on. The destruction of all those "terrorist training camps" (conveniently located in the desert, away from possible collateral damage). Capture of as much of his cached assets as possible. And the US should take credit for all of this -- no secrets once it's been done, not even non-denial denials. Let anyone out there know that you screw with the US, you cease to exist. Yes, that leaves the sleepers, but without the organization to back them they're just like ordinary criminals.

[Vogue State]

Yeah, you're right on the money. I don't think the sleepers are a non-issue, though. They're not like "regular" criminals; they're suicidal, murderous fanatics. Without the Head and Central Nervous System that al-Qaeda provides them, they certainly wouldn't be able to pull off another WTC, but they're still bent on their original goal. A suicide bomb in a bus, in a pizzeria, whatever -- small-scale attacks that'll take anywhere from a dozen to a hundred victims with them. If there are 10 such sleepers left in the U.S., that's one thing. What if there are 1,000? Who knows.

Sorry for the fearmonging BTW, whoever said "I don't live in fear, but it's always nagging me in the back of my mind" -- how is that not ``Living in fear''?

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
IMO, the solution to al-Queda has to be ruthless and complete. Not just execution of bin Laden, but that of everyone in the organization with any clue of what's going on. The destruction of all those "terrorist training camps" (conveniently located in the desert, away from possible collateral damage). Capture of as much of his cached assets as possible

It is an ideal solution for the isolated problem called Al Qaeda. But it does not solve a fundamental problem - the reason why the world really changed about 1990 (the world did not change last 11th September). The Economist describes an overall Arab outlook in three points:

Three main factors influenced the way these countries respond to American power. One is the growing politicalisation of Islam. Islamist movement have found America a useful counterpoint to their own, sometimes vague, ideas. ...
A second influence on attitude to America is the dismal record of governments in the region, many of which are propped up by America aid or arms. To Americans, this support looks like the price they pay for stability. To many Arabs and Muslims, burdened with poor housing and schools and restricted freedoms, it looks like the price they pay to ensure American hegemony. ...
A third influence is America's growing tendancy towards unilateralism. Kicking sand in the face of dictators goes down better in Kansas that in Kandahar.

Noted is the Oslo Accords where Americans

pushed other interlocutors out of the way ... A decade later, Israel had doubled its settlement of the occupied territories and the Palestinians errupted in revolt. For all its protests that it has tried to be an honest broker, America cannot shake the impression that it was fiddling while Gaza burned.

Point one: America cannot have any influence in those events because of how it handles points two and three. Point two: is a problem often as a result of compromise. However too often America does not compromise at all as demonstrated by American support for the Shah of Iran and for protecting and supporting a mass murderer Ariel Sharon - one of the men all but responsible for the assassination of Rabin. Point three: most Americans don't even recognize let alone understand the problem of point three.

For example, what were the Marines doing in Beruit Lebanon during the days of Reagan? They were there directly as a result of total American ignorance and therefore without even a mission statement, ammunition, or proper equipment. (BTW, much of that looked like it was created by one with intelligence of Col Oliver North.)

The death of 200+ Marines then is directly attributed to an American public that still does not understand the incompetence of their government at that time and that problably knew nothing in a post entitled "Latest World Update".

Having read that post, did anyone notice that Edward Shevardnadze is suddenly in Washington? Why is the US press saying he is here to advise Bush on Afghanistan? His direct involvement with Afghanistan was over a decade ago. That is the difference between an American perspective and an international perspective. The international perspective was in that other post.

The Economist defined what every American must first understand before they can have opinions on this thread:

The result? On the streets of Cairo today, it is hard to find a soul who admits to believing the FBI's version of events on September 11th. Many are convinced that the whole thing was a plot to smear Arabs and Muslims as crazed madmen. More will have read the writings which suggest that America's real intention is to capture Afghanistan to keep China out of the Gulf. .... But to recapture credibility, America has to show understanding of its allies' need to manage public opinion.

What the Ecomomist does not mention is that regardless of what you think, most of the world (including many in Europe) believe that the US backs the stealing of land from and the persecution of Palestinians. Based upon events in Israel since the death of Rabin (and even the extremist, distorted commentary by former NYC Mayor Koch on Bloomberg on the Weekend), then it is hard to dispute this Muslim and Arab opinion.

How misled is American perspective of this overriding problem? Well, how many publications make this key distinction - "Arabs and Muslims"? American press too often assumes all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are Arabs.

What will be the first indication that America has been awakened. America will not only say that Palestinians have a right to an independent country (as even George Jr is beginning to concede). America instead will demand that settlement from Israel including, this time, meeting the one demand that Arafat required - all the details be defined up front. How do you take the wind out of future bin Ladens? Remove support from right wing, mass murdering extremists (Ariel Sharon) and give the Palestinians their homeland per the intent of UN Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords. Failure to do this simple task will result in more Al Qaedas.

As of 1990 Kuwait and 1991 in Madrid, the world changed - from American perspectives. We are now fully involved in all region conflicts. Failure to resolve those conflicts will only result in more terrorism. That 'honest broker' requirement is the long term solution. When did the world change. Not 11 Sept. It changed on 1 Aug 1990. American public just did not notice the change nor all the previous attacks until 11 Sept.

[Undertoad]

Surprised you did not find one of the obvious conclusions from the Frontline report on the terrorism buildup - that when we retaliate with direct violent force, they get all quiet and go back to their hidey-holes.

I'm typically an extreme dove, but after watching that Frontline report, I'm convinced. It's really Reagan's fault. Botched response after botched response, the only thing that seemed to work is the response we gave Quadaffi: bomb the living crap out of his HOUSE.

They just don't respect anything but a severe smackdown. And I'm also convinced that racism is at the very heart of the entire problem.

Also, here's a question for ya... what would happen if we withdrew all support for Israel and left it to its own deeds? It might just go nuts, and it does have the resources to fight and probably win a war. Maybe the real reason we stay in the area is to stick our two cents in trying to prevent that war? Maybe the real reason the Arabs hate the Jews is racism and historically they've believed the Jews were inferior? Maybe the Jews would kick their ass across the desert in a way that we never would? Maybe we're there because supporting some form of status quo, no matter how screwed up, maintains the flow of oil?

I'm not sure, these are all hard questions.

[jaguar]

They just don't respect anything but a severe smackdown. And I'm also convinced that racism is at the very heart of the entire problem.

Maybe, but then they get up and lob a plane into your tallest building.

All big entities make enemies, but when you make too many you end up in hot water. Welcome to the United States of America.

It might just go nuts, and it does have the resources to fight and probably win a war

They've been picking off the leaders for quite a while now, buggar all effect, wonder if knocking off Bin Laden will have a lack of impact. They would have to kill every last Palestinian then probably go on to every other Arab country that wants to avenge those deaths then all the friends and relatives of those who died and on and on to completely solve it that way.

Maybe the real reason the Arabs hate the Jews is racism and historically they've believed the Jews were inferior?

Probably part of it, don't think holding their holy site helps either, but that is one messy issue. Al the Anti-racism stuff in the first world makes me laugh, he we are protecting the rights of a minority who are unbelievably produced against us, but they are a minority so it’s all ok...

One memorable incident at school, which despite being about 50/50 Asian/White usually has zero racial problems, comes to mind(ok that’s not true, but they don’t usually come out in public, under the surface its one big-ass simmering pot). During one of the rare fights at our school lwhich happened between an asian and white they called each other skip and chink. When teachers turned up and this came to light the White kid got suspended, the Asian got a detention......

Wow now that was off topic.

Maybe we're there because supporting some form of status quo, no matter how screwed up, maintains the flow of oil?

Peace is in everyone’s interest but particularly the firs world, we want the oil. OPEC has a history of using oil to get thing south of us.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Surprised you did not find one of the obvious conclusions from the Frontline report on the terrorism buildup - that when we retaliate with direct violent force, they get all quiet and go back to their hidey-holes.
I'm typically an extreme dove, but after watching that Frontline report, I'm convinced. It's really Reagan's fault.

I assume Undertoad refers to the excellent Frontline documentary on bin Laden?

Reagan's response to the Middle East was very much what Reagan also said we should be doing in VietNam. IOW just apply force while ignoring the reasons for conflict - and they will concede. No wonder Reagan criticized the NY Times and Washington Post for only publishing the truth - Pentagon Papers.

Reagan's actions converted US citizens from people safe to walk among the Shites, Druze, and Maronites into people that make good hostages. An American could visit any combatant army in Lebanon before one event - the New Jersey shelling of Lebanon. At that point, Arab countries no long could trust Americans.

However something converted all opinions - 1 Aug 1990 - the Day the World Changed. With a new respect and appreciation of America, the US government infiltrated the Oslo Accords - and could have created a Middle East peace. US newly discovered influence was destroying terrorist recruitment campaigns throughout the world. The only problem is that we failed to properly deal with Saddam - and therefore stayed in Saudia Arabia. Oh, we told the American public that we left, but we did not leave. That one problem became a recruiting poster for Middle East muslim extremists.

Now this would not have been a problem except that when Rabin was assassinated by the right wing extremist parties, we did nothing to stop or discourage the slow destruction of the Oslo Accords. It has been a slow dismantlement that could have been stopped cold if we had only demanded all elimination of West Bank settlements. But the general American public reads the Daily News or watches Action News - and therefore did not understand that deterioration. As a result, extremists could also recruit from the moderate Arab world.

Since most Americans do not even know of UN Resolution 242 (see "Man vs Tank" in Image of the Day for examples), then right wing extremist and mass murderer, Sharon, only kept dismantling the Oslo Accords. He could eliminate the entire Oslo Accords if he did so slowly - because Americans would not even question the massacre of Palestinians in a Lebanon refugee camp let alone the theft and occupation of the West Bank.

Therein lies a real problem. We had undone Reagan's (and Oliver North's) mess by doing the Gulf War. We had the framework and the willingness on all sides to create a Palestinian / Israeli settlement . But we let extremists sabatoge it. We said nothing when right wing Jewish extremists undermined the entire peace process. Instead America supported a mass murder - Ariel Sharon. That chain of events, since the outright assassination of Rabin by the Likud party, is why intelligent, Muslim and Arab moderates can be recruited into extremist organizations - into actions that violate their own religion and upbringings.

We had Middle East peace in our grasp, but because we, the American people, did not even understand UN Resolution 242 (and don't notice how opponents of 242 constantly avoid having 242 discussed), then the American people let racist, right wing, extremist Israelis even steal the land from Israeli citizens of Arab dissent - and America says nothing.

At what point does the birthplace of Martin Luther King say, "No" to racists - the petty theif Netanyahu, the mass murderer Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, and the party of racists - Likud? So far, I only read "No" in my own posts.

It was not Reagan. We un-did Reagan's mess in 1991. But then we let right wing extremist Israelis (Ariel Sharon) even help Al Qaeda recruit terrorist extremists. We encouraged instablity by not stomping on the mass murder Sharon and his petty theif side-kick, Netanyahu. Sharon loves this instability. It is how he repeatedly advanced himself to Prime Minister ever since the 1968 Arab Isreali wars.

Osam bin Laden and Ariel Sharon are equally evil men. It is just that the world's legal systems define a mass murder 'bin Laden' differently from another who also murdered thousands of Palestinian women and children - Ariel Sharon.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Undertoad

Also, here's a question for ya... what would happen if we withdrew all support for Israel and left it to its own deeds? It might just go nuts, and it does have the resources to fight and probably win a war.

Israel might well go nuclear (with some of those nonexistent weapons it doesn't have) on its neighbors if it had its back pushed to the wall. And I rather suspect that wholesale slaughter of Arabs by Israelis in any Israeli victory would be unfortunately commmon.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Also, here's a question for ya... what would happen if we withdrew all support for Israel and left it to its own deeds? It might just go nuts, and it does have the resources to fight and probably win a war. Maybe the real reason we stay in the area is to stick our two cents in trying to prevent that war?

Previous US administrations have quietly removed Israeli governments by removing support. A primary example is the racist Likud government of Yitzhak Shamir. This right wing extremist would have destroyed the Persian Gulf coalition if he attacked Saddam in 1991. He did not care and prepared to attack Iraq because his extremist 'Likud' emotions were more important than logical thought. He was an extremist interested only in his (and his party's) self serving interests.

But Shamir was not done being obstructionist. In classic Likud (the party of racists) style, he absolutely refused to participate in the 1991 Madrid peace conference. How many remember the news of that period? Shamir outrightly refused to go to Madrid. Then George Sr began applying pressure. So Shamir relented at the last minute saying that he would only send his foreign minister. After all, Likud even talking in the same room as Palestinian dogshit? Again George Sr. put pressure (James Baker was excellent here). Finally Shamir reluctantly agreed to go to Madrid, but even then arrived late.

Being late was a message to his own party that he did not arrive of his own free will. That message did not help. Likud support disappeared because he no longer represented the Zionist principals of Likud.

Shamir was removed as Prime Minister. US does have influence against extremist, right wing Israeli politicans. Moderate Israelis voters rallied to install the legendary Yitshak Rabin as Prime Minister. Because Rabin was not Likud, the Oslo Accords could began in earnst.

Racist Zionists dominate Likud party. They fear any peace process. More important, they fear UN Resolution 242 which the legendary Rabin affirmed. That affirmation probably was the reason for his murder. Likud all but had Rabin murdered to terminate something they don't want - UN 242. What resulted from racist and zionist Israeli voters who absolutely fear 242? The petty theif Netanyahu as PM.

Extremists create instability. Therefore moderate Palestinians were driven to act - the intafada. What inspired moderates to become extremist intafada supporters? Another extremist and obstructionist racist: Netanyahu. Under Netanyahu, all Oslo Accords were obstructed at every turn. It is why Arafat, in Clinton's Camp David, had to demand every detail be agreed in advance. Likud soured the previous Oslo Accords by changing the settlement each detail at a time.

How active was the US in removing the racist party leader Shamir? James Baker in a speech directly before the AIPAC (the American Lobby for Israel) convention denounced Shamir's belief that Israel should hold onto the West Bank and Gaza. Baker's speech was a direct and destructive attack on Shamir. Baker ordered, in diplomatic terms, the removal of Shamir. Shamir represented a clear and present danger to a UN 242 based resolution - the foundation on which the Oslo Accords are based. That Baker speech directly to Shamir's American supporters may have been the last straw that removed a racist from the Israeli Prime Minister's office.

The US government has previously removed Likud governments because Likud government have a long history of making peace impossible.

You may not have known of James Baker's speech. It was not widely understood by the press at that time. But if your news sources are responsible, then you remember the whole week of news stories on how Shamir refused to go to Madrid. The 'real news' press understood that Shamir "I don't want to go mommy" story and reported it almost every night that week. You should have remembered those events.

We annually purchase rights to manipulate the Israeli government and have done so previously. Clinton's published solution to an Israeli Palestinians settlement scares the shit out of racist, right wing Israelis - including Likud. Clinton came close to getting an Arafat / Barak agreement. But because racism is so strong in Israel, then Clinton's proposals again rallied racist Israeli parties to install the worst of the worst racists - Ariel Sharon.

George Jr has done something unique and destructive to America's Israeli policy. Geroge Jr became disengaged. He left events to solve themselves meaning that extremists again control Israel without American interference. Colin Powel has not made the situation any better by calling Arafat 'not in touch with reality'. The reality is that Middle East peace is maintained often because American governments have directly acted to remove Likud Prime Minsters. As Sycamore has noted, look at how many Isreali PMs in the past ten years as racist Likud members are removed only to be replaced again by fearful, Zionist and racist, Israeli extremist voters.

The Palestinian Israeli question will only be settled when extremist Likud governments are removed. After all, name an Isreali peace settlement that occurred under an extremist Likud government? It takes moderates with balls, such as Rabin, to go to the peace table. America has previously driven racists out of Israeli governments by withdrawing support to Israel. Up until last month, George Jr never did that. Now and maybe Geroge Jr will drive the dichead Ariel Sharon from power - in part, because the WTC was destroyed.

Apprecitate why the US cannot ignore the western Middle East.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Also, here's a question for ya... what would happen if we withdrew all support for Israel and left it to its own deeds?

I fear a second Holocaust. I don't doubt the resiliency of the Israelis, but taking that much money out of Israel...

[elSicomoro]

I watched Blair's speech yesterday and was again impressed. I thought it was smart of him to 1) Stress that this is not a war against Islam (as Dubya did) and 2) Tie in why the UK is involved (other than being a staunch ally).