NationStates Jolt Archive

This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?em) is very interesting. Here are a few things that I find interesting about it.

The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials. I understand the need to take the fight to the enemy, but when does it become totally out of hand?

The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States. Does this interest anybody else? I keep wondering where this authority comes from.

These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said.Oh, here it is.

So, opinions, people?
Is this just another thing to be swept under the figurative carpet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?em

WASHINGTON — The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.

Hussein Malla/Associated Press
Mourners shouted anti-American slogans on Oct. 27 in Syria at the funeral of someone killed in a cross-border United States raid.

A 2004 order permits attacks on terrorists outside war zones.
These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.

In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants’ compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission — captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft — in real time in the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center at the agency’s headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away.

Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the C.I.A., according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of C.I.A.-directed operations.

But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.

More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.

Apart from the 2006 raid into Pakistan, the American officials refused to describe in detail what they said had been nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries. They made clear that there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

According to a senior administration official, the new authority was spelled out in a classified document called “Al Qaeda Network Exord,” or execute order, that streamlined the approval process for the military to act outside officially declared war zones. Where in the past the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days when there were only hours to act, the new order specified a way for Pentagon planners to get the green light for a mission far more quickly, the official said.

It also allowed senior officials to think through how the United States would respond if a mission went badly. “If that helicopter goes down in Syria en route to a target,” a former senior military official said, “the American response would not have to be worked out on the fly.”

The 2004 order was a step in the evolution of how the American government sought to kill or capture Qaeda terrorists around the world. It was issued after the Bush administration had already granted America’s intelligence agencies sweeping power to secretly detain and interrogate terrorism suspects in overseas prisons and to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and electronic communications.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush issued a classified order authorizing the C.I.A. to kill or capture Qaeda militants around the globe. By 2003, American intelligence agencies and the military had developed a much deeper understanding of Al Qaeda’s extensive global network, and Mr. Rumsfeld pressed hard to unleash the military’s vast firepower against militants outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official said.

Even with the order, each specific mission requires high-level government approval. Targets in Somalia, for instance, need at least the approval of the defense secretary, the administration official said, while targets in a handful of countries, including Pakistan and Syria, require presidential approval.

For example, shortly after Ethiopian troops crossed into Somalia in late 2006 to dislodge an Islamist regime in Mogadishu, the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command quietly sent operatives and AC-130 gunships to an airstrip near the Ethiopian town of Dire Dawa. From there, members of a classified unit called Task Force 88 crossed repeatedly into Somalia to hunt senior members of a Qaeda cell believed to be responsible for the 1998 American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

At the time, American officials said Special Operations troops were operating under a classified directive authorizing the military to kill or capture Qaeda operatives if failure to act quickly would mean the United States had lost a “fleeting opportunity” to neutralize the enemy.

Occasionally, the officials said, Special Operations troops would land in Somalia to assess the strikes’ results. On Jan. 7, 2007, an AC-130 struck an isolated fishing village near the Kenyan border, and within hours, American commandos and Ethiopian troops were examining the rubble to determine whether any Qaeda operatives had been killed.

But even with the new authority, proposed Pentagon missions were sometimes scrubbed because of bad intelligence or bureaucratic entanglements, senior administration officials said.

The details of one of those aborted operations, in early 2005, were reported by The New York Times last June. In that case, an operation to send a team of the Navy Seals and the Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, was aborted at the last minute.

Mr. Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur, in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the C.I.A. about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky.

Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director at the time, urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the C.I.A. even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan C. Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorize the mission.

Former military and intelligence officials said that Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who recently completed his tour as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, had pressed for years to win approval for commando missions into Pakistan. But the missions were frequently rejected because officials in Washington determined that the risks to American troops and the alliance with Pakistan were too great.

Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for General McChrystal, who is now director of the military’s Joint Staff, declined to comment.

The recent raid into Syria was not the first time that Special Operations forces had operated in that country, according to a senior military official and an outside adviser to the Pentagon.

Since the Iraq war began, the official and the outside adviser said, Special Operations forces have several times made cross-border raids aimed at militants and infrastructure aiding the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

The raid in late October, however, was much more noticeable than the previous raids, military officials said, which helps explain why it drew a sharp protest from the Syrian government.

Negotiations to hammer out the 2004 order took place over nearly a year and involved wrangling between the Pentagon and the C.I.A. and the State Department about the military’s proper role around the world, several administration officials said.

American officials said there had been debate over whether to include Iran in the 2004 order, but ultimately Iran was set aside, possibly to be dealt with under a separate authorization.

Senior officials of the State Department and the C.I.A. voiced fears that military commandos would encroach on their turf, conducting operations that historically the C.I.A. had carried out, and running missions without an ambassador’s knowledge or approval.

Mr. Rumsfeld had pushed in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks to expand the mission of Special Operations troops to include intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations in countries where American commandos had not operated before.

Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provides a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.

Several officials said the negotiations over the 2004 order resulted in closer coordination among the Pentagon, the State Department and the C.I.A., and set a very high standard for the quality of intelligence necessary to gain approval for an attack.

The 2004 order also provided a foundation for the orders that Mr. Bush approved in July allowing the military to conduct raids into the Pakistani tribal areas, including the Sept. 3 operation by Special Operations forces that killed about 20 militants, American officials said.

Administration officials said that Mr. Bush’s approval had paved the way for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to sign an order — separate from the 2004 order — that specifically directed the military to plan a series of operations, in cooperation with the C.I.A., on the Qaeda network and other militant groups linked to it in Pakistan.

Unlike the 2004 order, in which Special Operations commanders nominated targets for approval by senior government officials, the order in July was more of a top-down approach, directing the military to work with the C.I.A. to find targets in the tribal areas, administration officials said. They said each target still needed to be approved by the group of Mr. Bush’s top national security and foreign policy advisers, called the Principals Committee.



Well, looks like I was wrong, apperantly all those raids that I said probably werent really the US because they seemed to random, were indeed the US. I admit it.


So, whats everyone think? Shock? Outrage?

While I love criticizing Bush and Rummy, I don't know if they're all that wrong here.

I mean, it sounds a bit ludicrous if we're chasing Al Qaeda dudes and they cross the Pakistani border and then our guys give up and go "Well, I guess you got us this time, you sly fundamentalists, you!"

Cowboy George trying to stir shit up to dump on Obama's lap?

Seems good to me Hope, Obama keeps it up.

Seems good to me Hope, Obama keeps it up.

Yeah, violating other countries sovereignty on a regular basis is great.

Cowboy George trying to stir shit up to dump on Obama's lap?

Yeah, but hes been doing this before Obama was elected. Years before.


He is just letting us know now because both him and his party have nothing to lose at this point.

Yeah, violating other countries sovereignty on a regular basis is great.

If they cleaned their own closet it would not be necessary. We are going after international terrorist not pickpockets.

If they cleaned their own closet it would not be necessary. We are going after international terrorist not pickpockets.

And attacking other countries citizens within their boarders, without a declairation of war is so different from international terrorism.

And attacking other countries citizens within their boarders, without a declairation of war is so different from international terrorism.

Has any European or American issued a declaration of war since WWII??

these countries are allowed to fight back if they so choose.

If they cleaned their own closet it would not be necessary. We are going after international terrorist not pickpockets.

Yet when Russia went into South Ossetia to clean up Georgia's shit we bitched about it.

America, FUCK YEAH!!

Has any European or American issued a declaration of war since WWII??

What kind of an arguement is that?

these countries are allowed to fight back if they so choose.

Yeah, which would start more wars.

Yet when Russia went into South Ossetia to clean up Georgia's shit we bitched about it.

America, FUCK YEAH!!

I didn't realize Georgia was housing terrorist.

While I love criticizing Bush and Rummy, I don't know if they're all that wrong here.

I mean, it sounds a bit ludicrous if we're chasing Al Qaeda dudes and they cross the Pakistani border and then our guys give up and go "Well, I guess you got us this time, you sly fundamentalists, you!"

Which may be why chasing the enemy around on search and destroy missions might be a bad strategy. There are other, more important elements than the military in the War on Terror-- such as intelligence, policing, and diplomacy. Giving this kind of power to the military means that more often than not, military force is going to be the preferred solution.

Also, this same article was posted in another thread.

The list of groups who want to pick fights with Al-Qaeda is probably pretty short, so I'm not surprised. And the groups on the list other than the U.S. probably wouldn't be there without our support. At least, that's how I've heard it reported.

I didn't realize Georgia was housing terrorist.

If this was really about fighting terrorsts, we'd have struck inside Saudi Arabia.


Have we? No.

This isnt about fighting terrorism. Its about pushing around smaller countries who we dont like so they know whats what.

Which may be why chasing the enemy around on search and destroy missions might be a bad strategy. There are other, more important elements than the military in the War on Terror-- such as intelligence, policing, and diplomacy. Giving this kind of power to the military means that more often than not, military force is going to be the preferred solution.

Also, this same article was posted in another thread.

This thread came first though.

What kind of an arguement is that?



Yeah, which would start more wars.

In the post WWII environment declarations of war are not the norm.
Targets simply refuse to respect international boarders. If a target flees across international boarders and the new host country is unwilling or unable to catch/eliminate the target then proceeding across the boarder is perfectly acceptable.

I'm actually not surprised. Doesn't really bother me if special forces are operating outside the warzone (seriously, SF is active all over the world). The press should never know about these operations, though. Well, maybe in 50 years or something.

And attacking other countries citizens within their boarders, without a declairation of war is so different from international terrorism.

Depends on if the mission goes according to plan.

I would be upset if the military didn't have orders to engage Al Qaeda wherever they could.

While I love criticizing Bush and Rummy, I don't know if they're all that wrong here.

I mean, it sounds a bit ludicrous if we're chasing Al Qaeda dudes and they cross the Pakistani border and then our guys give up and go "Well, I guess you got us this time, you sly fundamentalists, you!"

That's a good point and part of the reason for the creation of the FBI so people couldn't just cross state borders and say well we got away. Yes I know that was within a country perhaps something is needed for countries.

Also how many of these countries were opposed to it? Pakistan allowed it, Saudi Arabia didn't mind Ethopia being allies of the US in the war with Somalia welcomed the US sending in forces.

Two minutes. Wow. Is that odd, KoL? :p

Two minutes. Wow. Is that odd, KoL? :p

Huh?

While I love criticizing Bush and Rummy, I don't know if they're all that wrong here.

I mean, it sounds a bit ludicrous if we're chasing Al Qaeda dudes and they cross the Pakistani border and then our guys give up and go "Well, I guess you got us this time, you sly fundamentalists, you!"I don't think the article is talking about pursuit of them. That could just be my interpretation of it, thought.
I thought it was more along the lines of going into the country to remove Al-Quaeda members that had not crossed into Iraq.

Huh?I created a topic on this two minutes before you did.
Yours was posted at 00:18, mine was posted at 00;16. :p

I created a topic on this two minutes before you did.
Yours was posted at 00:18, mine was posted at 00;16. :p

Oh, really? Ill go over to moderation and ask them to merge this with yours;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?em




Well, looks like I was wrong, apperantly all those raids that I said probably werent really the US because they seemed to random, were indeed the US. I admit it.


So, whats everyone think? Shock? Outrage?
Completely and totally not surprised.

What I am surprised by is that it took this long for it to come to light.

That's a good point and part of the reason for the creation of the FBI so people couldn't just cross state borders and say well we got away. Yes I know that was within a country perhaps something is needed for countries.

Also how many of these countries were opposed to it? Pakistan allowed it, Saudi Arabia didn't mind Ethopia being allies of the US in the war with Somalia welcomed the US sending in forces.

Actually, Pakistan has not given approval for U.S. forces to operate within its borders, and has expressed disapproval of strikes within its borders.

This is the sentence that frightens me:
American officials said there had been debate over whether to include Iran in the 2004 order, but ultimately Iran was set aside, possibly to be dealt with under a separate authorization.They were actually considering conducting strikes in Iran? In 2004?

Oh, really? Ill go over to moderation and ask them to merge this with yours;)OK, and we were about to do the same thing, again.
I was just about to do that.

OK, and we were about to do the same thing, again.
I was just about to do that.

Already did, no worries.

Actually, Pakistan has not given approval for U.S. forces to operate within its borders, and has expressed disapproval of strikes within its borders.

But the prior President was aware of the US doing these and didn't really speak out much about it apart from a warning that continuing attacks in the tribal lands of Pakistan might actually do more harm then good.

Already did, no worries.Alright. Now, to address the topic at hand.
American officials said there had been debate over whether to include Iran in the 2004 order, but ultimately Iran was set aside, possibly to be dealt with under a separate authorization.
I agree with Braaainsss on this.
They were actually considering conducting strikes in Iran? In 2004?

Alright. Now, to address the topic at hand.
I agree with Braaainsss on this.

Yeah, you gotta admit, that was a really dumb call. I mean....Iran? A country that would actually strike back?

But the prior President was aware of the US doing these and didn't really speak out much about it apart from a warning that continuing attacks in the tribal lands of Pakistan might actually do more harm then good.

Regardless, the current leadership, the one that actually matters, is against it.

I don't think the article is talking about pursuit of them. That could just be my interpretation of it, thought.
I thought it was more along the lines of going into the country to remove Al-Quaeda members that had not crossed into Iraq.

The U.S. says the target was someone involved in smuggling foreign fighters into Iraq. The idea is to disrupt the militants' lines of support. A bit like how in the Vietnam War, the U.S. starting bombing Cambodia to disrupt the communists' bases of support.

If this was really about fighting terrorsts, we'd have struck inside Saudi Arabia.


Have we? No.

This isnt about fighting terrorism. Its about pushing around smaller countries who we dont like so they know whats what.

The Saudis actually turn them over to us. or at least kick them out of the country when we point them out. Seems like the Syrians give them medals.

But the prior President was aware of the US doing these and didn't really speak out much about it apart from a warning that continuing attacks in the tribal lands of Pakistan might actually do more harm then good.

Yeah, what are they going to do, though? Pakistan gets billions of dollars in military aid from the U.S., it's not like they're going to jeopardize that.

The Saudis actually turn them over to us.


BUWHAHAHAHA.


No. No they dont.

or at least kick them out of the country when we point them out.

Only some of them. And of those "some", they look they other way when they come back in.

Others they just fund.

Seems like the Syrians give them medals.

Evidence of this?

Regardless, the current leadership, the one that actually matters, is against it.

But we were also talking about what the US was doing prior to the new President.

The U.S. says the target was someone involved in smuggling foreign fighters into Iraq. The idea is to disrupt the militants' lines of support. A bit like how in the Vietnam War, the U.S. starting bombing Cambodia to disrupt the communists' bases of support.And that turned out just wonderfully, didn't it?

In the post WWII environment declarations of war are not the norm.
Targets simply refuse to respect international boarders. If a target flees across international boarders and the new host country is unwilling or unable to catch/eliminate the target then proceeding across the boarder is perfectly acceptable.

So you are willing to laud say, a Cuban commando raid into America in order to capture/kill Cuban terrorists who are currently sheltered by the American government?

How about a Russian sponsored carpet bombing of a major American city to kill Serbian "terrorists masterminds"?

Or is this another double standard?

And that turned out just wonderfully, didn't it?

And that's my point. If your plan to win a war is to make it bigger, then you're doing it wrong.

So you are willing to laud say, a Cuban commando raid into America in order to capture/kill Cuban terrorists who are currently sheltered by the American government?

How about a Russian sponsored carpet bombing of a major American city to kill Serbian "terrorists masterminds"?

Or is this another double standard?


Its wrong when the Russian and Cubans do it because theyre dirty commies.

The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that no country wants them tohappen to them. Al Queda could claim that 9/11 was a pre-emptive strike.
Pearl Harbor certainly was.

So you are willing to laud say, a Cuban commando raid into America in order to capture/kill Cuban terrorists who are currently sheltered by the American government?

How about a Russian sponsored carpet bombing of a major American city to kill Serbian "terrorists masterminds"?

Or is this another double standard?
America is exceptional. We apply the rules to everyone but ourselves. You didn't get the memo?

Its wrong when the Russian and Cubans do it because theyre dirty commies.

Well what about British using their Trident armed Vanguard class subs to conduct tactical nuclear strikes on areas in America with strong Irish populations for "providing significant financial support towards IRA terrorists operations" hmmm?

And that's my point. If your plan to win a war is to make it bigger, then you're doing it wrong.

While I love criticizing Bush and Rummy, I don't know if they're all that wrong here.

I mean, it sounds a bit ludicrous if we're chasing Al Qaeda dudes and they cross the Pakistani border and then our guys give up and go "Well, I guess you got us this time, you sly fundamentalists, you!"I've just thought of something else.
Why are the special ops guys being ordered into other countries if the regular military units are just as capable of pursuing the Al Qaeda members into the country?
That only makes sense if the governments of the countries don't approve of regular units being present in their country.

Well what about British using their Trident armed Vanguard class subs to conduct tactical nuclear strikes on areas in America with strong Irish populations for "providing significant financial support towards IRA terrorists operations" hmmm?

Well then the British clearly hate freedom.

And that turned out just wonderfully, didn't it?

It got Henry Kissenger a Nobel peace prize.

America is exceptional. We apply the rules to everyone but ourselves. You didn't get the memo?

Indeed, part of the problem is that America prides itself on false history, claiming to have no aspirations to be an empire yet acting like one all the time. It's then caught between words and actions and has to act like a wuss.

It should either be a proper empire or it should stay out of other people's issues, trying to toe the middle line to appease the public has caused terrible decisions.

So you are willing to laud say, a Cuban commando raid into America in order to capture/kill Cuban terrorists who are currently sheltered by the American government?

How about a Russian sponsored carpet bombing of a major American city to kill Serbian "terrorists masterminds"?

Or is this another double standard?

Well, they could do those things, and then suffer the full wrath of the US. I doubt Cuba would exist as a country, and no one would really give a damn, except cigar lovers. Russia would be more tricky, but would be nuked in retaliation most likely. But wait, Russia couldn't get a bomber in to carpet bomb city, so that example is moot.

And if it is a double standard, so what? As long as it keeps the US safe. (Note: before people start raving on and on with crazy example to try and discredit this, I'm only saying that its fine for the US to find and engage Al Qaeda where it can be found. So keep your hyperbole to yourselves!)

Indeed, part of the problem is that America prides itself on false history, claiming to have no aspirations to be an empire yet acting like one all the time. It's then caught between words and actions and has to act like a wuss.

It should either be a proper empire or it should stay out of other people's issues, trying to toe the middle line to appease the public has caused terrible decisions.

I've been saying that for several years now.

If we're gonna be an Imperial power let's not half-ass it. Go forward 100%.

It got Henry Kissenger a Nobel peace prize.At least one person got something out of it, right?

The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that no country wants them tohappen to them. Al Queda could claim that 9/11 was a pre-emptive strike.
Pearl Harbor certainly was.

Might makes right.

If you can capitalize on your first strike it'll be regarded as a right and sound move. If you fail to capitalize you'll be seen as wrong, and worse.

Indeed, part of the problem is that America prides itself on false history, claiming to have no aspirations to be an empire yet acting like one all the time. It's then caught between words and actions and has to act like a wuss.

It should either be a proper empire or it should stay out of other people's issues, trying to toe the middle line to appease the public has caused terrible decisions.Yeah, let's just go ahead and officially become the American Empire.
I've been saying that for several years now.

If we're gonna be an Imperial power let's not half-ass it. Go forward 100%. Agreed. :D

So you are willing to laud say, a Cuban commando raid into America in order to capture/kill Cuban terrorists who are currently sheltered by the American government?
I thought all of them got stuck in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs. Do they actively pose a threat to Cuba or its soldiers now ?Has the US done anything to stop these groups from going back to Cuba? If for instance they have to stop in Mexico when coming back to Cuba would that not suggest Cuba attack Mexico first?

How about a Russian sponsored carpet bombing of a major American city to kill Serbian "terrorists masterminds"? last i checked we haven't carpet bombed a 3rd party country since the Vietnam war. And that i would object to anyways sending some special ops soldiers in with a few helicopters is different from leveling a city. Indiscriminate killing is a bit much with out a total war scenario.

Or is this another double standard? We don't seem to house any of those people with out making efforts to restrain/arrest/ or kill them ourselves them.

It got Henry Kissenger a Nobel peace prize.

Along with Lu Duc Tho, who rejected it because the war was still going on.

I didn't realize Georgia was housing terrorist.

I'm sorry, was Beslan a great candy giveaway? Or do you completely not give a shit about Russian lives.

At least one person got something out of it, right?

That's right who knows who will get the peace prize next year.

I was being sarcastic over how good it was.

I'm sorry, was Beslan a great candy giveaway? Or do you completely not give a shit about Russian lives.

I thought the group responsible for that was Chechnyan, not Georgian?

The Saudis actually turn them over to us. or at least kick them out of the country when we point them out. Seems like the Syrians give them medals.

Yeah, kicking out terrorists, after supplying them with everything necessary. How's that different from funding terrorist cells in different countries? Oh wait, Saudis give us oil, they're the good guys.

I'm sorry, was Beslan a great candy giveaway? Or do you completely not give a shit about Russian lives.

Weren't those Chechnyans? Or do you just conflate all of the injustices inflicted on Russia and use them to justify Russian foreign policy?

I thought the group responsible for that was Chechnyan, not Georgian?

Georgians were the only ones supporting Chechen Terrorists after Beslan. Or did you think that Putin really, really hates Georgian wine, but is totally ok with Ukranian Borsch? I mean Georgia and Ukraine both want into NATO, why does Georgia get a ban on it's wine, whereas Ukraine recieves the harsh, harsh penalty of buying Russian goods under Market Prices? Which is why Timoshenko actually freaked out and went a tad pro-Russian after finding out whom Yushenko was selling weapons to. Note her conduct on the weapon sales "yes Putin, you have full access and my full cooperation" versus her conduct on nearly everything else "umm, we're a sovereign country here, just reminding you, no Russki bases, unless you built them before, and if you want our cooperation gives us discounts".

Weren't those Chechnyans? Or do you just conflate all of the injustices inflicted on Russia and use them to justify Russian foreign policy?

Just answered, see above post.

Yeah, let's just go ahead and officially become the American Empire.
Agreed. :D


And considering anyone with even a basic grasp on history will know how empires tend to end, we should know that becoming an empire is a bad idea.

And if it is a double standard, so what? As long as it keeps the US safe. (Note: before people start raving on and on with crazy example to try and discredit this, I'm only saying that its fine for the US to find and engage Al Qaeda where it can be found. So keep your hyperbole to yourselves!)

Umm, double standards would actually lead to countries ignoring Al Qaeda instead of engaging it. Thus it gives Al Qaeda more freedom to operate, not less. Thus double standards, by definition don't make the US safer.

last i checked we haven't carpet bombed a 3rd party country since the Vietnam war.

Serbia might disagree.

Serbia's a good case, inaction due to pussy-footing around about sovereignty whereas a good empire would have gone in and stopped the nonsense properly.

Lives are lost through this reluctant empire.

And considering anyone with even a basic grasp on history will know how empires tend to end, we should know that becoming an empire is a bad idea.

Seem to last as long as any other type of nation.

China survived for about...2500 or so years with alternating dynasties.

Serbia might disagree.

Serbia's a good case, inaction due to pussy-footing around about sovereignty whereas a good empire would have gone in and stopped the nonsense properly.

Lives are lost through this reluctant empire.

200,000 Serbian refugees. Belgrade in ruins. Hundreds of Churches burned down by Albanians. How does this help the US win the War on Terror again? Aside from Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo draining even more American Taxpayer dollars?

And considering anyone with even a basic grasp on history will know how empires tend to end, we should know that becoming an empire is a bad idea.

There is generally more peace under a strong empire than with multilateral power.

Seem to last as long as any other type of nation.

China survived for about...2500 or so years with alternating dynasties.

They also didn't go out and try to conquer the World. How many Empires have fallen? And yet, still people want another Empire.

200,000 Serbian refugees. Belgrade in ruins. Hundreds of Churches burned down by Albanians. How does this help the US win the War on Terror again? Aside from Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo draining even more American Taxpayer dollars?

It stopped the genocide that was occurring. I'm not saying it was handled well, I'm saying it was handled badly, mostly because Europe are even worse than America in terms of action.

They also didn't go out and try to conquer the World. How many Empires have fallen? And yet, still people want another Empire.

Empires are not the norm, they are the exception throughout history.

Seem to last as long as any other type of nation.

China survived for about...2500 or so years with alternating dynasties.

China was also never really a proper "empire".

Sure, they'll last a while, but when they fall, and they always due, it tends to suck for a looooong time afterwards.


Look at Rome. Italy wasnt Italy from 476 AD to about 1900 AD.

Or Mongolia. I mean, sure, big Empire, but now? How many people even know were Mongolia is?

Georgians were the only ones supporting Chechen Terrorists after Beslan. Or did you think that Putin really, really hates Georgian wine, but is totally ok with Ukranian Borsch?
No, I think that Putin is mixing legitimate security concerns with geopolitical ambitions. Do you think the Georgian government actually supports the terrorists? The U.S. has been training and equipping them to fight against Chechnyan al-Qaeda cells. America, Russia, and Georgia all have a vested interest in getting the terrorists out of the Pankisi (sp?) Gorge. The unfortunate thing was that it got mixed up in sensitive political issues, and ended up causing a war.

EDIT: Why are we talking about Russia?

Might makes right.


Only on elementary school playgrounds and among simpletons.

Well, they could do those things, and then suffer the full wrath of the US. I doubt Cuba would exist as a country, and no one would really give a damn, except cigar lovers. Russia would be more tricky, but would be nuked in retaliation most likely. But wait, Russia couldn't get a bomber in to carpet bomb city, so that example is moot.

So you would be fine if Syrian, Pakistan and similar countries began launching strikes against America as retaliation then?


And if it is a double standard, so what? As long as it keeps the US safe. (Note: before people start raving on and on with crazy example to try and discredit this, I'm only saying that its fine for the US to find and engage Al Qaeda where it can be found. So keep your hyperbole to yourselves!)

Tell me, would you complain if your neighbor burned down your home, and you in it, if one of your family stole from him and is hiding out in your house?

The problem with your lovely set of double standards is that if anything, it doesn't keep the US safe. Instead, it just increases the number of enemies it has.

Do you think that the United States would survive if the entire world turned against it? If you do, well, good on you. I hope you will enjoy living in the irradiated and burned out wastelands of the former United States once that happens, assuming you survive to begin with.

I thought all of them got stuck in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs. Do they actively pose a threat to Cuba or its soldiers now ?Has the US done anything to stop these groups from going back to Cuba?

Luis Posada Carriles, currently a guest of the American government, stands accused of being the one responsible for the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, resulting in 73 fatalities. He is not being extradited, despite demands to do so by the Cuban government.

By your reasoning, Cuba is now justified in launching attacks on America in order to secure or kill Luis Posada Carriles.


And that i would object to anyways sending some special ops soldiers in with a few helicopters is different from leveling a city. Indiscriminate killing is a bit much with out a total war scenario. We don't seem to house any of those people with out making efforts to restrain/arrest/ or kill them ourselves them.

This is untrue. America does indeed house terrorists and terrorist supporters. They are either in the government, or (in the case of the latter) simply supporting the ones the government would like them to support.

America makes significant use of non-governmental armed proxies in order to further their interests, often with much bloodshed and grief towards the citizenry of the country of interest, much like other first world powers. Pretending that it doesn't is merely either ignorance, or sycophancy.

Which may be why chasing the enemy around on search and destroy missions might be a bad strategy. There are other, more important elements than the military in the War on Terror-- such as intelligence, policing, and diplomacy. Giving this kind of power to the military means that more often than not, military force is going to be the preferred solution.

Also, this same article was posted in another thread.

True, true.

More attention needs to be devoted to the non-military aspects of this issue. It is, after all, possible to win every battle and still lose the war.

More breathtaking bullshit from that bastard Bush.

1) I see nothing that says that Congress was involved. Is this another thing Bush decided unilaterally that he didn't have to work with them on? Especially since it means he doesn't have to account for how much these little macho jaunts of his cost the taxpayers.

2) Apparently even some top military brass were kept out of the loop. Nice way to command armed forces there, moron. Worried they wouldn't do it? Maybe because it's illegal?

3) It wouldn't have been so bad if the other countries had known and consented to allow such secret action against terrorists/international criminals within their borders, but of course that was never going to happen. Because, you know, if you worked WITH them, how could you set them up as future targets for invasion later on? This certainly explains Pakistan's sudden and strong hostility about the actions across their borders.

4) Oh, and if he's so convinced these SECRET orders are so good for fighting terrorism, nice move to reveal it now so Obama maybe can't keep using it. Well, that's the one thing he did right, but still it shows his backstabbing mindset that he would poison for the next guy something he seemed to think was good for national security. Dirtbag.

5) And, of course, I suppose now we'll get to listen to all the rightwing pundits carry on for years and years about how unfair we all were to Bush and that he really was going after bin Laden all this time, that he hadn't taken his eyes off the main enemy at all, but was diligently pursuing him all over the globe. Only he never let on.

I will always carry a tiny chunk of unhappiness in my heart as long as that motherfucker stays out of prison.

So you would be fine if Syrian, Pakistan and similar countries began launching strikes against America as retaliation then?
if they want to escalate that's their call.


Tell me, would you complain if your neighbor burned down your home, and you in it, if one of your family stole from him and is hiding out in your house?
Not justified.
But to make it more so justified. If neighbor was hiding someone who had killed a few of my children and has verbally committed to killing more of my children then yes it is justified. This is also assuming the police are non existent(as they are internationally) and will continue to be so for a long time.

The problem with your lovely set of double standards is that if anything, it doesn't keep the US safe. Instead, it just increases the number of enemies it has.

Do you think that the United States would survive if the entire world turned against it? If you do, well, good on you. I hope you will enjoy living in the irradiated and burned out wastelands of the former United States once that happens, assuming you survive to begin with.
non nuclear ?? If so yes.
Pretty easy march south to the Panamanian Canal.At the same time seize Canada. Then deploy the navy to defend both east and west Coast. we have twice the number of Carriers as the rest of the world combined and 3 times the flight deck space.



Luis Posada Carriles, currently a guest of the American government, stands accused of being the one responsible for the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, resulting in 73 fatalities. He is not being extradited, despite demands to do so by the Cuban government.

your leaving out he was held in prison in the US for 2 year and was only released in 2007 on health concerns and bail. Not to mention he was already tried and acquitted in a military court in Venezuela, And acquitted again in a civilian court, making an extradition request for the 76's bombing invalid under international law. His Escape was while the prosecutor was trying to appeal his 2nd acquittal to try him a 3rd time.

He is also considered a asylum seeker not a guest.
And considering he is 80 years old he is no longer a threat to anyone.


By your reasoning, Cuba is now justified in launching attacks on America in order to secure or kill Luis Posada Carriles.

NO because he has been acquitted two times by Venezuela There is no need to send an 80 year old man to triple jeopardy. More over neither Cuba or Venezuela have authority to try the case because the plane was flying from Barbados to Jamaica Those are the countries with the authority to try the case.


This is untrue. America does indeed house terrorists and terrorist supporters. They are either in the government, or (in the case of the latter) simply supporting the ones the government would like them to support.

your example was acquitted twice and was held for 8 years after the acquittal. If this is not a justified instance to deny extradition then I do not know what is. Regardless of the jury of public opinion the man had his day in court and won twice. He does not need a 3rd trial, and international law is pretty clear that this is a justified reason to grant asylum and deny extradition.

America makes significant use of non-governmental armed proxies in order to further their interests, often with much bloodshed and grief towards the citizenry of the country of interest, much like other first world powers. Pretending that it doesn't is merely either ignorance, or sycophancy.
would you like a handkerchief to blow your nose on hippie ???

Not justified.
So its not justified if it happens to you?

At least you admit your a raging hypocrit.


would you like a handkerchief to blow your nose on hippie ???

Cute.

So its not justified if it happens to you?

At least you admit your a raging hypocrit.


at a national level there are police. At an international there are no police. Or NATO is the police. You cant compare the international situation which is Anarchic to a situation that is domestic.

Cute.

So concede about the 80 yr old who is a supposed terrorist is nothing but hype then ?

if they want to escalate that's their call.


So by this reasoning, if I am a person of influence, I kill your entire family, burn down your home, steal all your possessions, and leave you with broken knees, and I would be perfectly fine, and of course, the onus is on you to get redress, not anyone else.


Not justified.


Perfectly justified. You opened the grounds for retaliation regardless of scale, so now you'll have to live with it, or rather, die with it.


non nuclear ?? If so yes.


You're deluding yourself now.


your leaving out he was held in prison in the US for 2 year and was only released in 2007 on health concerns and bail. Not to mention he was already tried and acquitted in a military court in Venezuela,

Cuban courts are the one with the authority to convict him, given that it was a Cuban flight he blew up.

Or maybe you would accept it if I slaughtered 500 American citizens in their homes, and was acquitted in a some banana republic court hmm?

Well, are you going to accept it or not? Because if so, I can think of no better person to start the spree with than you, because you wouldn't complain about having your own standards used on you now would you?


And considering he is 80 years old he is no longer a threat to anyone.


So you'll let people walk free from murder if they evade capture long enough. How nice.


More over neither Cuba or Venezuela have authority to try the case because the plane was flying from Barbados to Jamaica Those are the countries with the authority to try the case.

It was a Cuban plane that was blown up. Cuba has more than sufficient authority. Unless of course, you mean I can kill Americans in flight from one country to another, and not worry about going to an American court.


would you like a handkerchief to blow your nose on hippie ???

Of course you would resort to this, while ignoring your hypocrisy. It's quite simple really. If you don't mind this sort of behavior, you had better not complain one whit if it is applied to your personal ass even if it means you dying an agonizing death.

So by this reasoning, if I am a person of influence, I kill your entire family, burn down your home, steal all your possessions, and leave you with broken knees, and I would be perfectly fine, and of course, the onus is on you to get redress, not anyone else.
again let me stress there is a difference between international and domestic justice. There is no police force in international relations. If there is it is most likely the US.
You cant resolve a dispute within a nation state in the same terms you resolve a dispute between nation states.


Perfectly justified. You opened the grounds for retaliation regardless of scale, so now you'll have to live with it, or rather, die with it.

there is a absence of an international 911. someone kills someone i call the police ? Who has the authority to serve warrant on syria ?


You're deluding yourself now.



Cuban courts are the one with the authority to convict him, given that it was a Cuban flight he blew up.
it was a Cuban Airlines, International agreements however are clear mid flight incidence are under the jurisdiction of the destination and origin. Cuba was not the destination or the origin. Otherwise If I acted up on that British Airways flight I took from California to India I'd have to be flown to the UK to stand trial.
Furthermore Cuba has declared they would accept Venezuela judgment.
And Venezuela Acquitted him twice.

Or maybe you would accept it if I slaughtered 500 American citizens in their homes, and was acquitted in a some banana republic court hmm?

You do it in American you stand trial here.
The incident in question
DID NOT HAPPEN IN CUBA.
THE ORIGIN OF THE FLIGHT WAS NOT IN CUBA.
THE DESTINATION OF THE FLIGHT WAS NOT IN CUBA.
CUBA HOLDS NO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE.
so if some Banana republic wants claims your a terrorist in 9/11 and wants extradited there to stand trial do you want your country to send you???


Well, are you going to accept it or not? Because if so, I can think of no better person to start the spree with than you, because you wouldn't complain about having your own standards used on you now would you?

So you'll let people walk free from murder if they evade capture long enough. How nice.
more concerned with he wouldn't survive transportation

It was a Cuban plane that was blown up. Cuba has more than sufficient authority. Unless of course, you mean I can kill Americans in flight from one country to another, and not worry about going to an American court.

Pan Am Flight 103 Not tried in the US. tried in the UK. Seems the US already lives with this reality even if Cuba does not.
outside destination and origin prosecution this can be tried under anti piracy (on the high seas not the internet) laws. However this authority rest with the first person to have him in custody. This was Venezuela they acquitted him twice and then held him for 8 years.



Of course you would resort to this, while ignoring your hypocrisy. It's quite simple really. If you don't mind this sort of behavior, you had better not complain one whit if it is applied to your personal ass.

Well what else do you want? The facts, international law, and reality tend to agree with me.

again let me stress there is a difference between international and domestic justice. There is no police force in international relations.

So? I would still be well within my rights, by your reasoning, to kill/capture you I deemed that you were a danger/criminal to me even if your local courts don't.

So, will you accept the bullet or not?


If there is it is most likely the US.


The police serve to enforce the law and civil order. The US does not do so outside it's borders, and has even reneged on it signed treaties locally and abroad. It's no police by any stretch of imagination.


there is a absence of an international 911. someone kills someone i call the police ? Who has the authority to serve warrant on syria ?


There's something called extradition and an international court, not that the likes of you seem to want to give credence to it.


You do it in American you stand trial here.


Not if I get a trial and am acquitted elsewhere by your reasoning. Or are you going to flip flop on me now hmm?


so if some Banana republic wants claims your a terrorist in 9/11 and wants extradited there to stand trial do you want your country to send you???

Now you're just grasping by pulling out a different scenario.


more concerned with he wouldn't survive transportation


So?


Pan Am Flight 103 Not tried in the US. tried in the UK. Seems the US already lives with this reality even if Cuba does not.


If the US lives with this reality, why are they sending military strikes into other countries for these alleged "terrorists" without their permission hmm?


Well what else do you want? The facts, international law, and reality tend to agree with me.

So you will not complain then if you are killed (maimed rather, since the dead are incapable of complaining) by foreign agents seeking those they deem a danger to their host country then?

I will hold you to that.