What the Heck is Bin Laden's Game Plan???

[Den Valdron]

There's a number of possible outcomes for Iraq.

Believe it or not, a liberal western democracy is among the possibilities, and prior to the invasion and occupation, that was actually the foremost contender. The Iraqi's were an educated, westernized, secular society. If and when the Baathists lost power (a fairly good bet, a great many Saddam-like dictatorships in Latin America and Asia had already expired naturally) a pluralistic democracy would have been the most likely outcome.

I don't think that's going to be in the cards this round though. The most likely outcome is some form of Shia theocracy or pseudo-theocracy, allied closely with Iran, possibly tributary to Iran. Not quite what Osama has in mind, given his dislike for Shiite apostates. Fundy types hate apostates way more than infidels. It's one thing to be untouched by God, but to be perverting gods teachings...? Nasty. But he's got his eye on a bigger picture.

Another option is the break up in form or substance of the Iraqi state. This is what the Kurds are enthusiastic about. The Shia are not enthusiastic because they want it all. The Sunni are not enthusiastic because they'd come out of a break up with nothing. But you never know...

Something we can't rule out at this time is continuing devolution into a Somalia style failed state, ruled by warlords who dig up sewer pipes to sell for more guns and ammunition.

 

[Berzerker]

I have to say that the attack on Iraq is just playing into the hand of Osama and its result may even exceeds his greatest expectation.

Nah, there is an inherent illogic to bin Laden's argument to the Muslim masses - Saddam aint a real Muslim, he's just another dictator posing as a Muslim. But the Americans who took him out are evil too. Thats his argument and most people see thru it, we may bungle here and there (or appear to) but we sure dont see a mad rush of Muslims to fight us in Iraq either. I mean, c'mon... a billion Muslims and we're dealing with a few thousand? Hell, we leave and the locals will take them out... Oh, excuse me, John McCain says we cant leave or Al Qaeda in Iraq could take over the country... Thats one of the people running for President

 

[BasketCase]

Yes, you're probably safer sticking to basic facts..

Bush is President. You're not. He got re-elected. He had the support of a majority of Americans for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

All basic facts.

Oh, wait--I wrote those already. Then you go advising me to stick to basic facts.

 

[BasketCase]

Oh, excuse me, John McCain says we cant leave or Al Qaeda in Iraq could take over the country... Thats one of the people running for President

It gets better. There's now a large number of liberals who say we should stay in the breach as well. "We shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're in, we shouldn't leave yet".

Politics is one screwball profession.

 

[Den Valdron]

Excellent! Yes, Bin Laden's worldwide Muslim jihad does seem to be a bit of a fizzle. After all, there's America, occupying the second or third holiest soil in Islam, oppressing the faithful in two countries, threatening two more and helping Israel beat up on a fifth...

And what do we have in response? Not much.

More than anything else, what seems to be key is not victory on the battlefield, but the winning of hearts and minds. The United States is very unpopular, but that's not translating into any kind of global uprising.

On the other hand, its really hard to read these societies. That's the trouble with these feudal monarchies/secular dictatorships. You can never tell how strong or weak they really are, because they repress all other voices. Dissent is underground, so its difficult to measure. Sometimes they really are as strong as they look. Sometimes they're completely rotted from within and collapse without warning.

Looking around at how its shaping up, there are some disturbing signs. The religious fundamentalists largely boycotted the Pakistani elections, so its hard to say what their real strength is in Pakistan. They either boycotted because they didn't want to reveal weakness, or they're strong enough that they feel they can dictate to society.

In Turkey, one of the very few Islamic countries that have real elections, religious fundamentalist parties have been showing frightening strength. Strength enough that the secular elements in the military are talking coup again, as they've done in the past and as was done in Algeria.

Egypt cancelled or radically circumscribed its elections because there were indications that the Muslim Brotherhood might do rather better than it ought to.

There's no sign of Sunni religious fundamentalism in Lebanon's elections but then Lebanon's a pretty atypical place.

And of course, America and American values in these countries are about as popular as syphilis.

I dunno, there's enough rumbling out there that Bin Laden can take heart, and enough to keep the rest of us wary.

 

[Den Valdron]

It gets better. There's now a large number of liberals who say we should stay in the breach as well. "We shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're in, we shouldn't leave yet".

Politics is one screwball profession.

Not really. There was always a healthy contingent of 'war liberals' who supported Bush's war. They're honest enough to admit that the war turns out to have been based on lies, and that the place has been completely screwed over, but this becomes an excuse for continuing... basically, human nature.

 

[BasketCase]

Oh yeah? I'll come right out and say it myself:

The Second Iraq War was based on lies. (not entirely, but partially)

Guess what, Den: I don't give half a crap. The results are worth it. Iraq was completely screwed over while Saddam was running it, and it is now much improved. It just looks bad right now because there are no longer any secret police around to shoot nosy journalists who try to report what's really going on.

Iraq was always a mess under Saddam. He just kept us from seeing it.

 

[Berzerker]

BC

It gets better. There's now a large number of liberals who say we should stay in the breach as well. "We shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're in, we shouldn't leave yet".

Politics is one screwball profession.

I dont see that as relevant to what I said or inconsistent and in no way comparable to what McCain has been telling us about AQ in Iraq taking over the country if we leave. That statement is so absurd it shows a serious detachment from reality and we've had 7 years of that already (actually 17 years).

Oh yeah? I'll come right out and say it myself:

The Second Iraq War was based on lies. (not entirely, but partially)

So was the first

 

[Berzerker]

Guess what, Den: I don't give half a crap. The results are worth it. Iraq was completely screwed over while Saddam was running it, and it is now much improved. It just looks bad right now because there are no longer any secret police around to shoot nosy journalists who try to report what's really going on.

Iraq was always a mess under Saddam. He just kept us from seeing it.

So lying us into war is okay? Even with a death toll that'll approach a million some day with millions of refugees? We liked Saddam in the 80s when he was fighting the Iranians so all this "he's a bad guy" doesn't pass the smell test... Lets not forget who was supplying Saddam in his war with Iran.

Bush 1 made a big mistake when he didn't explain to Saddam what we'd do if he invaded Kuwait. Then, instead of letting the Muslims deal with Saddam and letting world opinion and sanctions drive Saddam out, we attacked. Okay, here comes Bush's 2nd big mistake... We stayed. Clinton adopted the mistake as his own and kept us there for his 8 years even while attacks escalated against us. Bush 2 comes in and falls asleep with the rest of us and 9/11 happens... We were so asleep because of "our leaders" the people on those first 3 planes didn't even know what was happening even though "our leaders" knew AQ had considered using hijacked planes as missiles before.

 

[bathsheba666]

Bush is President. You're not. He got re-elected. He had the support of a majority of Americans for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

All basic facts.

Oh, wait--I wrote those already. Then you go advising me to stick to basic facts.

This is the second time you have ignored the majority of my post and focussed on one tiny part in order to be able to repeat an inadequate response.

If you're too weak to deal with points given to you, I'm not surprised you think Bush is doing a great job. Perhaps you two belong together..

But then, no wait hang on a minute....

Bush is president....
...and you're not....

I wouldn't normally post this.
It seems kind of inadequate...

..but then it seems to mean something to you so..
..once again...
you're not. ....either....



Here are some more basic facts for you.
Grass is green. I'm not.
Does this mean I should not dare coment on grass, as well as presidential policy?

Hang on, no I've got it.
Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist...
...and...
YOU'RE NOT !

How dare you attempt a thin analysis of his tactics,
given this blatant obstacle.

Mods? Can we have this thread closed since Basketcase fails to meet his own implied criteria for being able to comment?

 

[BasketCase]

This is the second time you have ignored the majority of my post

Yep. Forum rules require me to.

So lying us into war is okay?

Not great, but better than all the alternatives that were available when Saddam was around. Yes, sometimes I'm willing to lie, especially to minimize the number of people who get killed. And yes, by invading Iraq I think we minimized the number of people who get killed.

The President (or any world leader for that matter) is always going to end up having to decide who lives and who dies. Does the money get spent on welfare or the hungry or AIDS research or breast cancer research? Do we kill people by supporting Saddam or do we kill people by eliminating him? Do we risk provoking Muslim terrorists by supporting Israel, or do we risk provoking Israeli terrorists (they do exist) by opposing Israel?

We're on rough territory here, folks.


Edit: what the hell. I've gotten a pretty good number of answers to the OP question in here. I'll go right ahead and request the mods to close this one myself.

 

[bathsheba666]

Edit: what the hell. I've gotten a pretty good number of answers to the OP question in here. I'll go right ahead and request the mods to close this one myself.

Try going for quality rather than quantity next time.

And, try leading by example next time.

 

[BasketCase]

Already do, and no point, in that order.

My number one rule going into any thread is this: I don't expect to change anyones mind. Rarely happens.

Edit: Actually that's my number four rule.

Re-edit: Okay, the thread went an hour without getting closed after I mentioned it to a mod. Guess we're good to go. I'm just gonna ignore Bathsheba for a while because a bunch of his lines had me going "huh???" and making no sense to me--the two of us are simply not seeing eye to eye.

 

[Den Valdron]

Oh yeah? I'll come right out and say it myself:

The Second Iraq War was based on lies. (not entirely, but partially)

Guess what, Den: I don't give half a crap. The results are worth it. Iraq was completely screwed over while Saddam was running it, and it is now much improved. It just looks bad right now because there are no longer any secret police around to shoot nosy journalists who try to report what's really going on.

Iraq was always a mess under Saddam. He just kept us from seeing it.

I disagree. You obviously give much more than half a crap because you are continually attempting to rewrite that chapter of history. If you really didn't care, it wouldn't come up. But instead, I find you continually ducking and dodging, always trying to fabricate the actual reasons for the war and replacing them with 'nicer' post hoc reasons. Frankly, the only reason you'd put so much effort in is if you cared a great deal.

Even now, while you pretend not to care, you still can't let it go. 'not entirely, but partially'? Right, because Hussein had chemical weapons tucked up his anus? Because there were actually biological weapons labs? A nuclear program? Connections with Al Quaeda? Partially? I don't think so.

As for whether Iraq is much improved, frankly, you're fabricating again. The truth is that there are a lot more dead people around than there would have been under Iraq. Estimates range from a million to only a few hundred thousand, but no matter how you cut it, that's a lot of dead people. There are millions of refugees. The Iraq economy barely functions, and after 5 years occupation pretty much every indicator of performance ... electricity production, oil production, potable water, nutrition, health care, etc. are all fractions of what they were under Saddam Hussein.

Does this mean that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. Of course not. He was a horrible human being and an incompetent thug who helped make his country a hellhole. But so what? Bush has made things worse.

Look, it's a Bin Laden thread. I'm perfectly happy to talk Bin Laden. I don't know why you have to obsess on Iraq. But its your issue dude, deal with it.

 

[BasketCase]

If you really didn't care, it wouldn't come up. But instead, I find you continually ducking and dodging, always trying to fabricate the actual reasons for the war

Wrong. I already said it's the results I care about.

Look, it's a Bin Laden thread. I'm perfectly happy to talk Bin Laden. I don't know why you have to obsess on Iraq. But its your issue dude, deal with it.

You keep talking about Iraq too. I know why. You want to get the last word in. You're just like me (errr....could that be considered flaming? )


Lemme see if I can straighten out the part that actually had Osama in it. You're all familiar with the kid on the playground who kept going "ha, I wanted you to do that!"--probably I should have stopped with that, because when I carried it further people started getting screwy ideas. The kid on the playground did that in order to piss people off--so Osama's real reason for saying he wanted us to invade Iraq might be the same.

I really wish Yankee would ban Osama for trolling. Oh well.

As for whether Iraq is much improved, frankly, you're fabricating again. The truth is that there are a lot more dead people around than there would have been under Iraq.

No. That's just one body count out of many, all of which are different. Saddam's body count is seven figures minimum, and very few estimates of America's body count even come close to that.

Edit: I've been hearing conflicting stories of how well Iraq is doing in all the other fields as well--refugees, industry, education, oil production--everybody has a different story, and I see no reason at all to accept yours as gospel.​

In the long-term, if Iraq is a democracy, people will stop dying permanently. That's the goal I'm aiming for.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Until the US doesn't like the flavour of democracy they installed.

Oh, and by the way, Den Valdron for the new (heretic?) prophet of common sense!

 

[BasketCase]

Various nations in Europe keep electing socialists to various offices now and then.

Wrong flavor of democracy--you know how we Yankees feel about socialists. You never see us invading any part of Europe any more.

Democracy. One great taste--and half the calories.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

LOL.

xchars.


EDIT: What I mean is, what you gonna do about it? Nuke us
It's easy to look big when you are fighting a dwarf

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Closed at request of starter.