F-16 Down over Iraq!

[C]

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

Although a notorious convicted murderer released from prison under the "Good Friday Agreement" did try to assasinate the two most prominent Republican polititians in Northern Ireland last month...

Any solution that see convicted criminals released "just like that", is far from ideal, and questionably solves the problem at all...

[dcunning30]

Terrorism only works when societies lack sufficient balls to make the decision to do whatever it takes to stamp it out.

Really? Maybe you could have been of use to tell the world how to solved the problem of the Northern Ireland problem...

Isn't it solved?

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

I understand your point.  Maybe I was implying the sort of terrorism that's currently going on now.  When we have a leader of a nation that is likely the chief national sponsor of global terrorism proclaim that everyone should convert to a certain religion or be destroyed, how can you negotiate with that?

[expat]

Terrorism only works when societies lack sufficient balls to make the decision to do whatever it takes to stamp it out.

Really? Maybe you could have been of use to tell the world how to solved the problem of the Northern Ireland problem...

Isn't it solved?

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

I understand your point.  Maybe I was implying the sort of terrorism that's currently going on now.  When we have a leader of a nation that is likely the chief national sponsor of global terrorism proclaim that everyone should convert to a certain religion or be destroyed, how can you negotiate with that?

It is very debatable whether Sadam was the chief sponsor of global terrorism, and stamping him out has produced two things. 1: A Civil war 2: Which is being used as a catalyst to terrorism. So by removing him, we actually have increased the likelihood  of terrorism.

Matt

[Woodlouse2002]

Terrorism only works when societies lack sufficient balls to make the decision to do whatever it takes to stamp it out.

Really? Maybe you could have been of use to tell the world how to solved the problem of the Northern Ireland problem...

Isn't it solved?

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

I understand your point.

[Chris_F]

Terrorism only works when societies lack sufficient balls to make the decision to do whatever it takes to stamp it out.

Really? Maybe you could have been of use to tell the world how to solved the problem of the Northern Ireland problem...

Isn't it solved?

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

I understand your point.

[Woodlouse2002]

Scary thing is that the description fits Bush better than it does Hussein.

[expat]

Life is much simpler as an ambivalent atheist  :-*

Matt

[dcunning30]

Terrorism only works when societies lack sufficient balls to make the decision to do whatever it takes to stamp it out.

Really? Maybe you could have been of use to tell the world how to solved the problem of the Northern Ireland problem...

Isn't it solved?

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

I understand your point.

[dcunning30]

Scary thing is that the description fits Bush better than it does Hussein.

Only if you live in Oz.  The facts are well known, this is not difficult.  

[Woodlouse2002]

Scary thing is that the description fits Bush better than it does Hussein.

Only if you live in Oz.

[Ivan]

Are you talking about Iran there?

Sounds like it...
In reality the danger is on the other side of the gulf...

[dcunning30]

[quote]It is very debatable whether Sadam was the chief sponsor of global terrorism, and stamping him out has produced two things. 1: A Civil war 2: Which is being used as a catalyst to terrorism. So by removing him, we actually have increased the likelihood

[dcunning30]

Another point regarding Tet was after the costly victory had been secured, Walter Cronkite "The Most Trusted Man In America" went on air and said that Vietnam was unwinnable.  This is in spite the fact that Tet was a victory.  When President Johnson heard Cronkite give his uninformed assessment of Vietnam, he declared infamously "If I lost Cronkite, I lost middle America".  Johnson decided not to run for re-election and the rest is history.  The US lost it's will to fight.

[expat]

Another point regarding Tet was after the costly victory had been secured, Walter Cronkite "The Most Trusted Man In America" went on air and said that Vietnam was unwinnable.  This is in spite the fact that Tet was a victory.  When President Johnson heard Cronkite give his uninformed assessment of Vietnam, he declared infamously "If I lost Cronkite, I lost middle America".  Johnson decided not to run for re-election and the rest is history.  The US lost it's will to fight.

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

[Ivan]

It is very debatable whether Sadam was the chief sponsor of global terrorism

However, we do know Saddam was busy, such as paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel after the bombers have completed their acts of terror.

Saddam was an puppet, just as most other USA sponsored Arab leaders... useful when he had power in the 1980s, useless after his adventures in Kuwait.

The real big terrorism sponsor in the mideast is the government of Saudi Arabia that pays the Bin Laden clan and a few other big fishes to keep their attention away from the royal family (which in their eyes is blasphemous because they allow US bases in their territory).

OK now the media stuff from dcunning, which is a far more interesting tale
Somalia was a media disaster... not because the planning was bad, but because it happened just after the gulf war when everyone believed that the US was invincible (which was about 380 deaths on a force of 600.000, with most casualties suffered by the Kuwaitis and a few nasty blue-on-blues)

Iraq is a mess because the planning went wrong in an early stage... Some big mistakes have been made, and it will take some time to clean the mess up. But one thing is certain... federalism isnt the long term solution.

The main problem with Iraq is that there wasnt enough time and media resources to build a credible 'mad dictator' media image. While Iran usually provides enough material to keep up the western point of view on them, Iraq on the outside looked like a normal western-influenced state, an image that they themselves tried to keep up also (even after 1991). So for the ordinary man, Iraq never looked dangerous or like the police state it really was.

There simply wasn't enough information available that showed the real face of the Iraqi regime while not putting the public opinion or valueable allies in a difficult position. The two major events that could have turned public opinion but were never used in a way that could have turned public opinion in favour of the whole operation (as happened with Kosovo) were:
1: The ethnic cleansing in the south after 1991. This was not useable because there wasn't enough material publicly available at that time, and because it could have been seen as supporting Iran, which was definetly NOT the desired result.
2: The campaigns against the Kurds (1988-2003). Even though this has a LOT more media coverage, it was unuseable for a public support campaign because the involvment of NATO partner Turkey in the area. Any public mentioning of atrocities in Iraq would have resulted huge media attention for the Kurds in general which would have placed Turkey in a very difficult position. Getting the Anfal campaign as a opinion turner might have worked even better, but that would have embarassed almost all sitting european leaders in such a way that a mass government collapse would have been very likely to happen (which is not something you want if you are on the verge of starting a war)

So instead of going for photogenic drama the decision was made to go for the nuke / chemical option... which wasnt a good choice.
OK they DID hide stuff for the UN and they DID experiment a bit with yellowcake, but even the most dangerous installations looked like they wouldnt have made anything dangerous on a short-term basis. And the rest of the chemical stuff was 1980s vintage and such bad quality (some say that this was done on purpose) that it wasnt useable anymore a few months after being delivered.

For the public opinion a photo of a row of bunkers doesnt activate the subconscios mind in the same way as a photo of mutilated bodies or desparate refugees.