Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpQ12NzCM8x4H5qGFNYH264vyYiQ

Can't understand why George W found this concept so hard to grasp, but hey ho.

Thats certainly promising.

I have to say I have real hope in Obama. Regardless of the historic nature of his Election, I am buoyed that he isn't from a long political dynasty. This could be to his detriment in some areas (lack of experience) but is also a boon, if played right. After all, he has nothing to live up to except his own potential and promises.

The Dem party is a long political die-nasty. Look at the core team from Bill Clinton to which he defers.

Corruption? Nominating a guy who only decided to pay his taxes (as far back as 2002) on the eve of his nomination to Barack's cabinet. What happened to everyone's got to share the wealth? Didn't Biden say it was patriotic to pay taxes? So why is Barack nominating such an unpatriotic individual?

Change? Where?

utan wrote:The Dem party is a long political die-nasty. Look at the core team from Bill Clinton to which he defers.

Corruption? Nominating a guy who only decided to pay his taxes (as far back as 2002) on the eve of his nomination to Barack's cabinet. What happened to everyone's got to share the wealth? Didn't Biden say it was patriotic to pay taxes? So why is Barack nominating such an unpatriotic individual?

Change? Where?

So that's it? A thread on a significant change in Israel/Palestinian policy (most noticeably because its being addressed at the start of his first term when political power is greatest, not at the back end of his second like Clinton and Bush)... and you drop in to point out a guy in his cabinet didn't pay his taxes.

Sure, Bush was something of debacle and Obama is still in the honeymoon period but there's got to be something better to argue with than back taxes in a foreign policy thread.

utan wrote:

Change? Where?

Think you will find the change refers to the US on the world stage. There was no real logical reason for the Muslim world to turn on the US so badly. Fair enough, they may not of trusted you due to the closeness of the US to Israel, but US actions against Muslim countries has been sparked by the frustration of the terrorist attacks against it.

IMO I think you should of been more tactical after 9/11. Iraq was a George W pet project that ruined your world standing. You could of used you tech and intel to launch pin-point strikes against terrorist groups. Yes it would of ruffled feathers, but not so much as Iraq. Plus at the end of the day none of the Muslim countries want to be supporting fanatics, especially as they could turn on them at anytime. Hopefully Obama will follow the advice given by Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

errm, I think the point was that President Obama is pursuing a markedly different foreign policy agenda than his predecessor.

Most of the rest is the civilised world is breathing a collective sigh of relief at this point (especially the British, who tend to take our fair share of casulaties on Disney's Arabian Adventure).

Does anyone really think that the best way to get Iran to change its stance on important issues is to threaten them? After all, no western power would renounce its policies if another country said if effect 'do it, or else...'

And yes, I know that people will say that Iran sponsors terrorism, except of course that this isn't the Iranian Army marching under the flag. Its desperate and rather pathetic individuals who have been shamelessly corrupted by extremist clerics to believe that killing the Infidel is a sure path to Paradise.
Knock away the crutch of legitimacy given to these people by having Iran, Syria et al as part of the International community and it becomes that much harder for them to recruit, just as renewed efforts to reduce terrorist income by finding alternative energy supplies and disrupting the drugs trade makes it harder for them to train and equip.

All of this gets easier when places like Iran (which, it must be remembered, is full of ordinary men and women for the most part - trying to make a living and leave a legacy for their children) is with us, rather than against us.

Indeed, the Iron Fist with a Velvet Glove approach is a good way to go about things.

The Bush years were all about aggression and generally being an arse (Your with us or against us. Unless you're the IRA whom have been American funded for quite some time. Or fighting against someone we don't like. Then you're freedom fighters)

I for one welcome the US back to the fold. Most wars end up around the negotiating table anyways, so how about just skipping the horrors of war and agreeing to meet there in the first place?

Wolfstan wrote:Think you will find the change refers to the US on the world stage. There was no real logical reason for the Muslim world to turn on the US so badly. Fair enough, they may not of trusted you due to the closeness of the US to Israel, but US actions against Muslim countries has been sparked by the frustration of the terrorist attacks against it.

IMO I think you should of been more tactical after 9/11. Iraq was a George W pet project that ruined your world standing. You could of used you tech and intel to launch pin-point strikes against terrorist groups. Yes it would of ruffled feathers, but not so much as Iraq. Plus at the end of the day none of the Muslim countries want to be supporting fanatics, especially as they could turn on them at anytime. Hopefully Obama will follow the advice given by Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

Well, I think Afghanistan was necessary. There had been a period of pin point strikes, which basically amounted to firing cruise missiles into tents that may or may not have people in them, and occasionally aspirin factories. I think the action in Afghanistan was necessary and worthwhile. It's just Iraq came along and drew resources away and stopped Afghanistan being done properly.

I think only the most obtuse left wing arse could possibly argue that Afghanistan was a mistake or indeed unnecessary. It clearly was. Indeed, the Taleban were not a recognised Government in the West at the time, and were known to harbour Terrorist factions.

But Iraq was unjustifiable (plenty of other countries do equally horrific things to their populace) and the whole WMD was a pack of sheer lies on the behalf of our Governments....

sebster wrote:

Well, I think Afghanistan was necessary. There had been a period of pin point strikes, which basically amounted to firing cruise missiles into tents that may or may not have people in them, and occasionally aspirin factories. I think the action in Afghanistan was necessary and worthwhile. It's just Iraq came along and drew resources away and stopped Afghanistan being done properly.

Exactly. Afghanistan was a clear threat. It was a training ground / bolt hole for Al'Qaeda as well as having a terrible human rights record.

Honey, no one gets or deserves a honeymoon when they take the office of President of the US.

I am old enough to be cynical about all politicians and the Republicrat party in particular. They promise a lot in there direct-response ads but rarely deliver. To quote Atkinson they are "like a Christmas cracker. One massively disappointing bang and the novelty's soon worn off."

Talk is cheap. I will keep my eyes open for results, but I do not expect much.

Well, he's already pressed ahead with the closure of Guantanamo Bay....Thats a positive sign.

Not terribly American holding people captive, without charge, for over 6 years now, is it? I'd call it a stain on your country myself.

This is funny...
"If only the US had negotiated with the terrorists, then 9/11 would not have happened! It's all Bush's fault!!!"
Never mind the fact that the attacks were planned before Bush got in office. Don’t let facts get in the way of good ass licking of this new president. I am sure his diplomacy will work! Come on! Its not like people lie on those meetings
("All I want is Austria!")

We are at war. They were non-soldier combatants (edited to correct term) caught in the war. They get out when the war is over.
Besides, Britain just said it doesn't want any more. Can I send them to your house MDG?

Its strange though. Bush has been out for at least a week. Yet terrorists are still attacking us, most recently a thwarted attack in Yemen. I'm shocked, I thought it was all Bush's fault?

Europe has been negotiating with Iran for years now. How has that worked out so far?
I think its too late on that front. We either hit Iran now or get used to a nuclear Iran. Then a nuclear Egypt. Then a nuclear Saudi Arabia. Then a nuclear Syria. Then a nuclear Kuwait. Not necessarily in that order of course. But I have faith, after all the Middle East is one of the most stable regions in the world. No one ever goes to war or does anything illogical there.

Thats the trouble though Frazz.

Geneva Convention specifies legal treatment etc for Prisoners of War. This expressly forbids torture as a means of interrogation.

Now, the US did not claim them as PoWs. So Geneva Convention did not apply.

However, nor did they plump for them being Civilians, neatly sidestepping US Law on treatment of Prisoners.

Instead, they were labelled the rather dubious 'Enemy Combatants' essentially a made up stature with no legal precedent preceeding it.

Gen. Lee...*nobody* is saying that in this thread. Anywhere. At all. Indeed, nobody is saying the military campaign in Afghanistan was a mistake either. BUT Iraq was a mistake, and the way Guantanamo Bay was setup was also wrong to the point of extremely dubious legality....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Thats the trouble though Frazz.

Geneva Convention specifies legal treatment etc for Prisoners of War. This expressly forbids torture as a means of interrogation.

Now, the US did not claim them as PoWs. So Geneva Convention did not apply.

MDG they are non-soldier combatants. They have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

So, can we ship them to your house MDG?

utan wrote:Honey, no one gets or deserves a honeymoon when they take the office of President of the US.

Newly elected presidents received positive media coverage for a while after election. This is called a honeymoon period. I wasn't aware anyone tried to argue otherwise. I have no idea why you're arguing otherwise.

I am old enough to be cynical about all politicians and the Republicrat party in particular. They promise a lot in there direct-response ads but rarely deliver. To quote Atkinson they are "like a Christmas cracker. One massively disappointing bang and the novelty's soon worn off."

Talk is cheap. I will keep my eyes open for results, but I do not expect much.

Fine, that's your right. I'd recommend you be wary of lazy cynicism, mind you, that easy process of looking for a quick way to dismiss something so you can feel superior without ever having to learn about anything. It's all too common on the internet.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Gen. Lee...*nobody* is saying that in this thread. Anywhere. At all. Indeed, nobody is saying the military campaign in Afghanistan was a mistake either. BUT Iraq was a mistake, and the way Guantanamo Bay was setup was also wrong to the point of extremely dubious legality....

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:This is funny...
"If only the US had negotiated with the terrorists, then 9/11 would not have happened! It's all Bush's fault!!!"
Never mind the fact that the attacks were planned before Bush got in office. Don’t let facts get in the way of good ass licking of this new president. I am sure his diplomacy will work! Come on! Its not like people lie on those meetings
("All I want is Austria!")

Austria? If you're going to cram history into a hackneyed analogy, at least get the basic facts right.

Frazzled wrote:We are at war. They were non-soldier combatants (edited to correct term) caught in the war. They get out when the war is over.
Besides, Britain just said it doesn't want any more. Can I send them to your house MDG?

Why can't they go through judicial process and spend their lives in supermax? They're all known to be guilty, and supermax is full of scarier guys than these planners and organisers.

Its strange though. Bush has been out for at least a week. Yet terrorists are still attacking us, most recently a thwarted attack in Yemen. I'm shocked, I thought it was all Bush's fault?

Nothing Bush did in office could ever be as bad as what the Russians did in Afghanistan and Chechnya. The antipathy to the US is long and complicated, and not just the result of US foreign policy. It certainly isn't the result of Bush foreign policy (before 9/11, what was Bush foreign policy? I can't even remember...)

Bush's failings are more to do with squandering public goodwill in the wake of Afghanistan. Seriously, in Iran anti-US protests (normally organised by govt) were banned for a few weeks. The mood really was with the US in the wake of 9/11, there was a chance for something to really change. Now it's so far the other way it's hard to see it ever ending.

Europe has been negotiating with Iran for years now. How has that worked out so far?
I think its too late on that front. We either hit Iran now or get used to a nuclear Iran. Then a nuclear Egypt. Then a nuclear Saudi Arabia. Then a nuclear Syria. Then a nuclear Kuwait. Not necessarily in that order of course. But I have faith, after all the Middle East is one of the most stable regions in the world. No one ever goes to war or does anything illogical there.

Egypt is basically a US client state. If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons they won't get any, because they're entirely dependant on you for weapons right now.

What do you think of Israel's current nuclear capacity? Is it destabilising the region, and do they need to be bombed as well?

(see, told you I'd quote you when I had something to say about your posts )

sebster wrote:
Austria? If you're going to cram history into a hackneyed analogy, at least get the basic facts right.

I was having a bit of fun, not giving a history lesson.

I retract that comment, and apologize to all historians on this thread.

Indeed, Afghanistan is most defiantly justified. Unfortunate due to poor timing it has become synonymous with the disastrous escapade in Iraq and many people view the 2 as the same conflict when they are anything but. Had the resources that had been put in Iraq been utilized in Afghanistan instead, its quite possible that all the troops could be home with their loved ones by now. Lets hope it not to late to do something about that.

Anyway bringing up that guy why had some tax problems sounds a bit like nitpicking to me, if that’s the biggest skeleton you can find in the closet of Obama's cabinet then it sounds like he's done a remarkable job compared to his predecessor.

Anyway Obama has been in office for just over 1 week. In that time Obama has lifted pointless barricades to stem cell research, Announced plans for greater transparency with the security services, has announced closure of the shameful Guantanamo bay, and is bringining in new emissions targets. Add this new attitude to foreign policy it amazes me that anyone can say nothing will change. Things are changing.

The only trap is the fact that people have placed very high expectations on Obama, far beyond what he has ever actually promised. But it doesn’t alter the fact that for the first time in ages I feel proud of the special relationship with the United States and I don’t think I'm alone.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:This is funny...
"If only the US had negotiated with the terrorists, then 9/11 would not have happened! It's all Bush's fault!!!"
Never mind the fact that the attacks were planned before Bush got in office. Don’t let facts get in the way of good ass licking of this new president. I am sure his diplomacy will work! Come on! Its not like people lie on those meetings
("All I want is Austria!")

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

LuciusAR wrote:

The only trap is the fact that people have placed very high expectations on Obama, far beyond what he has ever actually promised.

Turning back the rising seas? Healing Earth?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But most of "those people" don't hate you. They don't think about you at all until bombs/rhetoric etc provides ammunition for militants to whip them into a fervour.

And of course having one of your candidates run for office using " bomb bomb bomb Iran" might not go done too well over there perhaps ?

And it wasn't like Obama was going " we want to love you"

As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," he said.

"It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of US power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran."

There's conditions there see ?

Wolfstan wrote:

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

Afghanistan was necessary. The mistakes were

A. Expecting the Northern Alliance to top outside Kabul.
B. Not stabilising Pakistan.
C. Getting into Iraq without any necessity.
D. Doing that before the job in Afghanistan was finished.

Bush was not solely responsible for worldwide negative feelings against the USA. There have always been anti-USA people.

Bush simply made things a lot worse and began to alienate natural allies like the UK.

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Thats the trouble though Frazz.

Geneva Convention specifies legal treatment etc for Prisoners of War. This expressly forbids torture as a means of interrogation.

Now, the US did not claim them as PoWs. So Geneva Convention did not apply.

MDG they are non-soldier combatants. They have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

So, can we ship them to your house MDG?

Well, first of all, I'm not aware of the exact definition of a Non Solider Combatant.

In times of War, enemy soldiers have certain rights when captured (held without trial, but afforded human rights until end of conflict). Non Soldier Combatant. So, like the French Resistance in some respects. Not part of an organised Military, but more than willing to fight for their country (n.b. I am NOT drawing paralells to the Heroic souls who made up the French Resistance and the Religious Zealots who comprise Al Qaeda and the Taleban. I am simply using the structure as a comparisson, not the motivations).

Civilians cannot be held indefinitely without charge. Even Terrorist suspects have a finitie holding time before they have to be released.

So, which is a non-soldier combatant? And were they all really gun toting extremists? Many it seems were not and were regretably in wrong place/wrong time...yet all held without charge for several years.

Do you mean other than bombing /dropping phosphorus on a UN school ?

Or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable in a conflict ?

Non-soldier combatants are armed people fighting without the benefit of having been enrolled into a recognised state's armed forces.

Otherwise know as criminals.

The point about Guantanamo is that it was impossible to hold the suspect as POws because they weren't and impossible to hold them as criminals as there wasn;t enough evidence to stand up against a write of Habeus Corpus. So a new category was invented.