Democracy means voting for your friendly neighborhood dictator

[Husar]

Uhm, wouldn't he like, survive the bomb, if he was hiding in some underground tunnel/bunker system unless perhaps it was dropped very close to him?

[LittleGrizzly]

OBL was a very unwell man 8 years back... I can't imagine he's spent the last 8 years running from cave to cave whilst needing to be hooked up to a dialysis machine (I assume for a few hours a day) either the running killed him or he found somewhere nice to stay with friends a while ago...

Needless to say anyway OBL is nothing more than a figurehead... so that trumps rvg's insanity by some way... at least he wasn't too specific so we could imagine some terrorist filled country (or at least a good number) you on the other hand are willing to nuke a country on the basis of getting a figurehead nothing more...

Im starting to figure out why people are so worried about Iran getting nukes now though... If you (in your view) 'reasonable' people can use nukes so casually (hypothetically at least) then imagine what the (in your view) insane Iranians would do with nuclear weapons...

[Fragony]

Im starting to figure out why people are so worried about Iran getting nukes now though... If you (in your view) 'reasonable' people can use nukes so casually (hypothetically at least) then imagine what the (in your view) insane Iranians would do with nuclear weapons...

I don't think they are reasonable, their national government is a farce the mullahs are pulling the strings, and I don't think they are bluffing I think we are truly dealing with religious nutjobs here.

Edit, oh and my masterplan, cut of the middcleclass with a full trade block, China isn't that important yet, timber. Anyways, did I already mention I like these protesting iranians.

[Furunculus]

There you go Furunculus.

LOL, is there where i should complain about the use of stereotypes? hehe.

That terrorism is somehow a treath is the biggest scam the world has ever seen.

not sure i can decipher that response, dude.............

[HoreTore]

not sure i can decipher that response, dude.............

Let's face it, will any terrorists ever be able to take control of our governments? They can kill maybe a few thousands a year, that's a rather irrelevant number.

The only threat terrorism poses, is our draconian ways of dealing with it.

[Beskar]

LOL, is there where i should complain about the use of stereotypes? hehe.:

What amazes me more is that some one replied to you, with that political alignment and with that same exact view. It really makes the whole affair LOL.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The question you didn't ask is: what right does the West have to impose anything on any group of people by force? Most of our ancestors, at one time or another, have fought for our own rights of self-determination. We value liberty above all. It is not up to us to create nation states.

Actually, I had thought this question was subsumed by the fourth in my list, referencing Western ideals etc. As you rightly point out, any efforts at nation building, however well intentioned, are far more readily justified in terms of national security interests than they are in terms of promoting self-determination (that being at least partly oxymoronic).

Bleak, but rather melodramatic, old friend....In truth, the biggest blow made against al-Q'aeda to date has not involved bombs, but accountants. Just as Al-Capone (you see what I did there ) was brought low by accountancy, so are the terrorists running out of money. Money buys friends - it's remarkable how quickly chaps go off The Caliphate ® when it has no cash.

I agree that the accounting war has been AT LEAST as effective if not more than military efforts. You had a number of other interesting points. I will confess to a moment of melodrama. I get upset by stupid actions on the part of my nation. Foremost among these include the use of force -- and blood -- stupidly. If you are going to put that most precious resource on the line, then you go in to win (like a million US ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq each to actually suppress the problem) or you don't go. Of course, that would require political leadership that was willing to make hard choices, so it isn't going to happen. I wonder, given all of the examples we can cite, why so may TW players think the AI's diplomacy is that bad...

Yes, security will slacken and one day, a mistake will be made. The only connection this will have with Afghanistan is that the vicious clown that perpetrates the atrocity will be nursing a hatred of the West because someone killed his aunt with a drone at a wedding.

There is much truth in this Banquo. However, if you accept that collateral killings such as the hypothetical example you cite are inevitable, the corallary is that military action can never be used -- which begets its own host of problems.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's face it, will any terrorists ever be able to take control of our governments? They can kill maybe a few thousands a year, that's a rather irrelevant number.

The only threat terrorism poses, is our draconian ways of dealing with it.

And traffic deaths kill thousands upon thousands per year. So, in order to not be "draconian" with our own freedoms, we should NOT have any laws regarding drunk driving, or seatbelts, or child restraints, or airbags?

I cannot simply accept the idea of terrorists killing a few thousand of us a year while I simply read the newspaper and make idle comments on Spain not having its usual death toll this year. I CANNOT simply dismiss it as the cost of doing business. That you, apparently, can do so revulses me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The thing is, EMFM, we don't know where OBL is hiding... And that mountain range is quite large. The only way to get OBL, if he's even hiding in those mountains, with a nuclear bomb, would be to carpet bomb the entire mountain range.

And that, my friend, is insanity.

If I recall correctly, we did know where he was, and fought a battle where he managed to get away from American special forces. This was years ago, of course, I don't think we know where he is now.

[Beskar]

I remember how the News Reporters were able to meet Osama Bin Laden, but the American Military couldn't (very soon after 9/11)

[HoreTore]

And traffic deaths kill thousands upon thousands per year. So, in order to not be "draconian" with our own freedoms, we should NOT have any laws regarding drunk driving, or seatbelts, or child restraints, or airbags?

I cannot simply accept the idea of terrorists killing a few thousand of us a year while I simply read the newspaper and make idle comments on Spain not having its usual death toll this year. I CANNOT simply dismiss it as the cost of doing business. That you, apparently, can do so revulses me.

It's the lesser of two evils in my mind. I would much rather have a few thousands die each year from terrorists instead of the hundreds of thousands we've killed in our two anti-terror wars.

Simple math, really. I pick the lowest number of dead people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I agree that the accounting war has been AT LEAST as effective if not more than military efforts. You had a number of other interesting points. I will confess to a moment of melodrama. I get upset by stupid actions on the part of my nation. Foremost among these include the use of force -- and blood -- stupidly. If you are going to put that most precious resource on the line, then you go in to win (like a million US ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq each to actually suppress the problem) or you don't go. Of course, that would require political leadership that was willing to make hard choices, so it isn't going to happen. I wonder, given all of the examples we can cite, why so may TW players think the AI's diplomacy is that bad...

Your last sentence had me smiling.

The rest of your paragraph is exactly my position too. I've gone to war and seen my comrades die - but for a defined purpose, and with (just) sufficient resource to achieve it. Most importantly, with an iron political will behind the decision. I've also sat bemused in a meaningless, seemingly endless conflict against terrorism whilst politicians pontificate to hide their cowardice.

The military option should always be the last. I can understand the drive to attack Afghanistan militarily because it would have been an extremely brave and capable president who could have resisted that demand after 9-11. However, for a fraction of the cost, one or other of the Taliban could have been bribed to hand over bin Laden or assorted warlords set after him. The Talib were only holding out for a better price, but because we don't understand how things work, we mistook their refusal as a refusal. I suspect enough gold would have had bin Laden in an American court and thence frying nicely by the end of the next year.

However, this would have been a politically brave choice, so going in militarily, knocking the Taliban about a bit and then withdrawing would have sent the appropriate message. Then getting the pocket book out to keep the warlords fighting each other and paying for every al-Q'aeda head brought on a platter would have kept them happy and busy. I don't understand why the nation-building foolishness came in - except as a result of neo-con lunacy drunk on the Iraq plans.

At the same time, security services have got better and better at working together against the terrorists. The accountancy example is just one to demonstrate how we have in fact, got a lot safer. However, we will never be entirely safe, but politicians won't say this. Continued collateral killings and occupations make us far less safe, and this isn't said either.

There is much truth in this Banquo. However, if you accept that collateral killings such as the hypothetical example you cite are inevitable, the corallary is that military action can never be used -- which begets its own host of problems.

The corollary doesn't follow. There have been many effective wars where the death of civilians has caused resentment, but not terrorism. They have usually been short, with a defined purpose that finally benefitted the local populace so forgiveness could follow. Generational wars of occupation bring deep bitterness that acquires its own mythos - and takes generations to dissipate.

Finally, by their very foundation and nature, the United States are not an imperial power. To subjugate somewhere like Afghanistan, not only would you need a million men, but the will to inflict cruelties and wickedness for a great many years. Soviet Russia couldn't even subjugate those brave people and they had a real track record in the necessary skill-set. Jefferson was right.

[KukriKhan]

...enough gold would have had bin Laden in an American court and thence frying nicely by the end of the next year...

...going in militarily, knocking the Taliban about a bit and then withdrawing would have sent the appropriate message. Then getting the pocket book out to keep the warlords fighting each other and paying for every al-Q'aeda head brought on a platter would have kept them happy and busy.

That plan is precisely what I thought (at the time) was going to happen. That we (all) still have boots on the ground today has me flummoxed.