[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hi Skybird,
i can understand this and i cannot even propose anything better, i just say it is still wrong.

And you arev right, war always is "wrong" in that it is against our moral rules and values we live by in peacetimes. We may make it a desirable goal, we may excel in niot seeking for war actively, and not causing a war carelessly. Still, war can find us, because there is no consensus amongst those 7 billion people living on this planet that war always is unacceptable and should be avopided. There people who find war desirable to achcieve their goals, perfectly honourable, or perfectly legal and okay. And these people are the problem.

You might be surprised, but I see myself as a pacifist. But that does not mean for me that I always and under all circumstances rule out war, no matter what. It means that I prefer peaceful solutions to important conflicts where we have stakes to lose, and that I do not like war at all. But that is where my pacifism ends - I do not allow to let pacifism being turned into weakness. Nor does pacifism mean that I porefer choosing the wrong, over war. Sometimes, war is inevitable. That'S whow life is. This world is not perfect, so isn'T man. I do not invite war, but I am prepared for it in case it finds me. I don'T call it a welcome guest, but when it appears on my doorstep, I am willing to deal with it. Weakness - is no option. Ignoring reality just because one feels emotionally sensible about peace and war, is no option.

I have not much respect for the iranian or pakistani leadership, but for the people who have to live under those regimes. They cannot choose.

That is not true, many had made their choice in elections, also, as long as you accept the consequences, nothing can stop you to decide for this or for that. Whether you are successful, is somethign different, but the choice you always have. Even in most extreme circumstances - I think of Sophie Scholl. Extreme, I know, but I refuse people beign seen as the total victims of their rulers or cultures only. A Chinese saying says: "people have the government that they deserve".

"It is not about criminals. This is no law enforcement operation"
Says who - you ? It is exactly about criminals. Terrorists are criminals per definitionem. Otherwise they would be soldiers - and they are not.
So this is not a war, other than described by Cheney, Wolfowitz et al.
Also the law of the US is thus enforced in countries obviously not underlying their jurisdiction.

[
There was an old debate ten years ago about this so-called "illegal fighters", the temr goes back to the Napoleonic era and tries to categorize this type of "soldiers" that fight wars, but do not wear uniforms. Inm WWII, such people, if beign caught, would be put against the wall immediately. The taliban is an army of asymmetrical war, but they are not just criminals. Criminals do engage ina cts of war, attack with weapons of war, fire mortars and artillery and HMGs and ATGMs against tanks and SAMs against aircraft. When you call these "criminal", you need to send the Bundespolizei and the BKA facing them. I doubt they would hold out long. Also, acts of war and ideologic crusade done in war fashion, are no categories of crime, but of - war.

I prefer US law to the Shariah anytime lol, however if you want US jurisdiction worldwide what do you propose ?

Neiother did I say I want US global jurisdiction, noir is this the issue here. The iossue is asymmetrical wars beign fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, plus drione strikes taking place occasionally in african coutnries like Somalia, Sudan, and some more. These countries do not represent the global order. They represent war zones, some represent zones run by anarchy and without strong legitimate and potent national governments

A big war to end all wars ? Islam against western values ?

No, Islam against al non-Muslim world. Just today Die welt again qupotes a speaker of the TTB, one of the major organsiations of the Tlaiban, saying that indeed they are fighting for bringing the rule of Islam back to Afghanistan - and the whole world. The problem with Wetserners is that they find this claim so surreal that they simply cannot imagine that other, fporeign people may be serious when they say that.

The problem is that you fuel terrorism with that kind of "warfare", and it will once more fall back on us sooner or later.

No, the problem is Islamic ideology motivating people to waste their lives by turning the world into a bigger hellhole. If we resist to this, you say we fuel terrorism. Should we surrender? What this do, then? Isd the victim of rape fueling the aggression of her attacker when she tries tio fight him/her back? Is the victim of a robber or of an assault fueling the gangster'S aggression when not giving up and surrender, but fights back?

No, i do not have a better idea of what to do, however the current course of action looks like an elephant in a porcelain store.

I have never said anything else but that I consider both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as strategic defeats for the West, and that the war against Iraq was stupid and misled and that I would not have started it. Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11, but later turned into a totally mismanaged- selfmade mess.

But aslong as the troops are kept thewre, for whatever stupid poltiicans sthink about the reasons, they are in a warzone, so let them fight the war as a war. Since ten years this is not beign done, and that'S why we are where we are.

The problem also is that drones are useless without having spies and intelligence, about where the terrorists and their leaders are. You cannot do all by satellite and drones.

That is correct, and it is my understanding that right this is being done: intel of various sources, amongst that ELINT, HUMINT and drones life footage, get combined for the bigger picture.