bin Laden truce

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Danr, Jan 19, 2006.

  1. Danr

    Danr New Member

    bin Laden wanted to be a household name all over the world. He has succeeded
     
  2. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I think his goals were a bit loftier than that.
     
  3. Danr

    Danr New Member

    When it comes right down to it he is an ego maniac. bin Laden cares about bin Laden the rest is merely a means to an end.
     
  4. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Danr reading thru this thread just tells me once again you have no idea how the arab middle eastern mind works. It is this simple, you offer peace or a truce to your enemy at a cost that would make it impossible for your enemy to accept then that gives you a rightous agrument to do the deadest of sins for after all you did show mercy first and after all you were a man of peace who offered a solution and your enemy turned you down.
     
  5. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    You have that right on Andy they then end up been the poor opressed tribesman who only wanted to live in peace with his god and the world Kiss but the terrible west would not allow it so he has to continue the holy war to save himself and his family

    De Orc :D
     
  6. Danr

    Danr New Member

    Pretty basic strategy. Based on (a variation of) the retreat and ambush that the Muslims used to defeat Soviets in Afganistan.
     
  7. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Danr, I think you are confusing the strategic retreat during a battle with the strategic retreat from a war. I don't know that the term has any meaning what so ever in the context of the war on terrorism. There in no battle line or mass force of men that would be present in a conventional conflict. You can't strategically retreat from a philosophy that seeks to undermine your entire society.

    As I've said in past postings, you have to look at this war differently from the wars in the past. It is only by fighting yesterday’s wars with yesterday’s strategies and weapons that we can defeat ourselves. Even Bin Laden knows this fact and uses it against us.

    Strategic retreat is a silly idea at this point because even if Bin Laden actually wanted a truce and went home to plant his poppy garden for the rest of his life, his supporters would kill him for abandoning the cause. He has to die either by their hands or ours. It's just a matter of time for him and then he gets to be that martyr he has always wanted to be. We'll still be here and he'll fade into history.
     
  8. Danr

    Danr New Member

    The concept of using retreat to further your position is valid in many war and non-war situations. It could be particularly useful here since we are being handed the opportunity to retreat with advantage.
     
  9. Midas

    Midas New Member

    OK Mr Green Peace, show me some historical fact to your insane claim. I want to see specifically in the history of mankind where a country has "furthered their position" by retreating (or as liberals call it, 'redeployment') from an enemy with the same resolve as mulsim radicals.

    Keep talking...you are just proving to the forum why liberals and socialists have no business defending or protecting this country.
     
  10. Danr

    Danr New Member

    I gave a great example above (Soviets/ Mujahidin).
     
  11. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Not that I believe this is a case where a retreat is what is needed but, I just love to prove Midas wrong. So I give you this example...

    Washington’s use of strategic retreat

    Washington knew that for the Revolution to succeed the Americans only had to defend themselves against the British. The British faced the heavier burden of sending troops 3000 miles to quash the rebellion. If the British were unsuccessful and decided to go home, the Americans would have their independence. In order to fight a defensive war, Washington knew that at minimum his army had to survive. As long as he could keep a viable force in the field, there was always the chance that the British would leave or be defeated. So Washington was careful to never allow his army to be trapped where there was no retreat possible and he always recognized when to use strategic retreat in the face of overwhelming odds so his army could survive to fight another day.

    Ironically, George Washington’s early military reputation was based on a retreat in the French and Indian War. British troops led by General Edward Braddock marched against Fort Duquesne on July 9, 1755. As the British passed through a clearing in the forest, they were ambushed by Indian allies of the French. Braddock refused Washington’s request to take militia into the woods to engage the Indians. Washington displayed remarkable courage in the fighting. He had two horses shot out from under him, bullets tore his coat, and his hat was shot off. Braddock was wounded and later died. Washington led the remaining British troops in retreat. Americans admired Washington’s courage and gave him credit for his willingness to engage the enemy and for leading the successful retreat. Some Americans believed that divine providence had spared Washington for important future service.

    George Washington’s use of strategic retreat in the American Revolutionary War guaranteed the survival of the Continental Army. At the Battle of Long Island in August 1776, the British soundly defeated the Americans and Washington’s troops fled to the safety off a nearby fort. On the foggy night of August 29, Washington led a skillful retreat of thousands of American soldiers by boat from Long Island to Manhattan. A few months later, Washington maintained a fortified position on hills near White Plains, New York. When the British easily captured a nearby hill that was higher, Washington successfully led his troops in retreat to even higher hills near New Castle. In September 1777 at Brandywine Creek near Philadelphia, the British swept around and came up behind the Americans rear defenses. Washington himself led a successful defense of the rear that allowed most of his army to escape.
     
  12. Danr

    Danr New Member

    Midas you should simply admit that you are wrong on this one. Liberals are better at defence, Republicans exploit national defense in a cynical and treasonous way.
     
  13. Midas

    Midas New Member

    Washington used what little he had. Read the book "1776" and you will come to appreciate what odds and force Washington had to overcome. Washington also fought against the largest and strongest force in the world at the time. You seem to forget, WE are stronger and more powerful than your typical 3rd world muslim radical country...so why should the most advanced, most powerful, strongest force retreat from muslim rag head radicals?

    But...Washington never surrendered as the war lasted over 8 years. Even after the battle of Yorktown, the war lasted another year and a half. Lucky for Washington, the liberal press was not there crying, "Washington lied, troops died!" If they were, we would be under British rule. The sure fact that Washington kept his troops together for this period is more of a miracle than his battlefield decisions.

    What you are proposing is an immediate pull-out with the "hope" that muslim radicals will sit idle and will not attack us. You don't seem to understand that if you don't confront evil, that good will eventually fade away. You are willing to trust muslims than do what is best for our country. That's scary all into itself!

    But that's right...liberals like you two think that Bush is Hitler and Bush is the evil person in this war. That is just another reason why liberals don't have the best interest of these United States.
     
  14. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    All I gave you was a historical example of a strategic retreat exactly as you asked for using our own country's fight for independence as an example. A retreat does not equal surrender as you have suggested. I have championed neither approach thus far.
    Even when I am advocating the same position as you are, you lump me into the pile with all those you can't abide and go on your prerecorded rant. Do you ever wonder why your ramblings fall on deaf ears? I sure don't.
     
  15. Midas

    Midas New Member

    I just don't know why in the world anyone would retreat when you are WINNING. The taliban towel heads are on the run, Saddam is out of power, many of your beloved muslim terrorists are living in holes (where they belong) and what does Danr (okay meon, not you on this one, I'll give you that) suggest??...

    RETREAT!!! (aka redeployment)

    It goes against all militray doctrine which is when your enemy is hurting and you are WINNING, you pour it on and end the war as quickly as possible...NEVER LET THEM BACK UP! NEVER!! Obviously Danr is way too far left on this one...
     
  16. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I don't know why. It's not an option at this point in the game. We have nothing to retreat from as far as I can see. Like I have said before, Bin Laden has done nothing for the Muslim world except make us take over two countries in the heart of the Middle East. Nice goin' Binny!
     
  17. Danr

    Danr New Member

    I gave an example of how we could use strategic retreat in this case. That was off the top of my head. If I were paid to think about stuff like this I am sure that I could come up with many great ways that we could exploit bin Laden's misstep with this offer. Unfortunately our leadership has no desire to exploit our enemies mistakes. We could play this to our benefit if Bush did not have this wierd theology telling him it is God's will for us to push on (again much like Hitler).
     
  18. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 New Member

    Dan,

    A political discussion room has great potential based on the quality and knowledge of the posters. I'm always willing to engage in an intelligent debate, but this obviously isn't the place for it. I gave it a read to give it a chance. I'm a little disappointed that you are "learning" from this sort of stuff. I expected better from you. Anyway, enjoy your zingers and one line insults. That's about all this is good for.
     
  19. Danr

    Danr New Member

    Now wait a minute. Are you saying that there is no way that we could exploit this offer to our benefit?
     
  20. quick dog

    quick dog New Member

    Possible Situations:

    (1) I am not convinced that Osama Bin Hidin is even alive. He certainly is in no position to demand a truce or direct all the nasty little people of the world.

    (2) I suspect that after the United States pulls most of its troops out of Iraq, probably within the next ten months, radical Islamic foreignors in Iraq are in for some rough times. We are the only outfit in the World that generally plays by ACLU rules and listens to European critics.

    (3) This Iranian nuclear showdown bothers me. Perhaps nothing will happen, but it sure looks like certain Islamic leaders are attempting to bill this pending affair as the biblical "end of times" scenario. I am particularly worried about Chinese and Russian involvement in the Iranian showdown. All of these folks have made a habit of misreading testy situations.

    (4) Perhaps this potential showdown in Asia Minor will ultimately resolve the world Islamic problem.

    L'chiam
     

Share This Page