Posted on 07/17/2004 4:53:20 PM PDT by MadIvan
Seattle, huh? Well, it's a tough nut to crack, but here's how I'd do it. First, I'd throw a cordon across at Tukwila and at Northgate. NOthing gets through and lives.
Then I'd work on it one 'burb at a time. The U-district, though, would have to be nuked. There's just no saving it.
We have to realize that all three islamic sponsors of terror, Pakistan, iran, and saudi arabia need to be addressed.
To address all three countries, we would have to need public support all along.
It would be difficult to sustain public opinion over three wars, when we are already losing it over one such war in iraq.
As such the effort should be divided amongst different countries, so that we don't lose public opinion before all
three are addressed
The US effort should focus on helping and enabling other countries to take these islamic countries out.
1- Israel should first be enabled to take the iranian nuclear facilities out first. If iran resorts to terror afterwards, it would give us the backing of the world opinion to go for an occupation of iran.
If iran can split into several small states, it wouldn't turn into the problem we are encountering in iraq.
Infact we wouldn't have had a problem in iraq, if we had instead carved it up into small separate states. that way they wouldnt have joined hands against us and their hostility would have been directed at each other, much like the kurds against other iraqis.
2- We should couple our airpower with indian and russian forces to take out Pakistan. Let it be a major indian
effort with US involvement kept a secret, if possible.
Since this would be a war fought mainly by indian and russian forces,it would be characterized as a regional conflict and we wouldn't get the flak for it at world fora.
Since pakistan could easily be broken into 6-7 small states, states that would thank us for their independence, it would never degenerate into another iraq.
3- saudi arabia could be another iraq, since our continued presence would be needed there because of its oil wealth, as such it should be handled by US forces after the first two threats are addressed. Russia and india should again be recruited for this theater if possible.
it would call for an iraq like occupation unless some measures were devised to divide it into small states like qatar. A criterion would have to be devised it for though.
I would agree with your statement if we were discussing Pakistan, KSA, Lebanon, Syria and other so called friend and foe Muslim nations of middle and Far East. Have to disagree about Iran. If the mullahs and their families were to disappear overnight, (Wow, what a party) the 90% of Iranians remaining would become Muslims just in name very shortly after. I left Iran when I was 16, before the revolution. Never learned to pray and never been to a mosque and was never even told I should. Mine was a typical Muslim lifestyle. Islam was an Arab thing and we were Persians then, but for grandpa’s sake, there was a freedom of religion. But yet no freedom of political speech. The above forecast is only if the revelation happens from inside. Because in contrast, you can instigate any people to unite under an ideology just in fighting what they would consider an outsider aggressive war, especially the Persians. The mullahs and their MSG is truly despised by the common folks in Iran. Calling and supporting a regime change could make this an almost bloodless victory against the mullahs.
"We have to realize that all three islamic sponsors of terror, Pakistan, iran, and saudi arabia need to be addressed."
--The Paki Gov't no longer sponsors terrorism. Rogue elements of the ISID (Intelligence service) do, however.
"If iran can split into several small states, it wouldn't turn into the problem we are encountering in iraq.
Infact we wouldn't have had a problem in iraq, if we had instead carved it up into small separate states. that way they wouldnt have joined hands against us and their hostility would have been directed at each other, much like the kurds against other iraqis."
-- I've got a lot of problems with this. First off, there's no need to split up Iran. It is a hogoneous state of persian Shias and over three-quarters of the population are in favor of regime change. Iran can be changed through a people's revolution there very easily.
Second, Iraqis aren't holding hands in attacking us. Former Regime Elements (FREs) are atacking us and foreign terrorists are attacking us. al-Sadr's 13 year-old goons are occasionally attacking us, but is a very small problem. The overwhelming majority of Shias are peaceful towards us, but Iranian agents are rustling them up politically from time to time.
"Since pakistan could easily be broken into 6-7 small states, states that would thank us for their independence, it would never degenerate into another iraq."
--Why would you split up Pakistan? If for some reason we committed regime change in Pakistan, Pashtunistan should be carved out of the far west of Pakistan and given autonomy or given over to the Afghanis; they are essentially afghanis anyway. The rest of pakistan should rejoin mother India and correct one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century: the partition of India.
BTTT
A secular iran and pakistan with WMD's could still threaten us just like secular iraq and syria threatened us.
Saddam was a secular guy with a christian deputy, i hope you remember that. Assad and kaddafi again are secularists? do they not threaten the west?
iran and pakistan carved into small states could never threaten us just like lithuania, latvia, croatia and uzbekistan can't threaten us.
its the only way to address the islamic threat. We need to carve them into small states that don't have the might to apsire for power and small states that wouldnt have the might to resist our power.
Pashtunistan should never happen, because the pashtuns are your taliban. You don't want to give them autonomy
Why don't we incorporate all of it into india?. Well who can tell what our relationship with india bein the future. why work through india as an intermediary, when we can have direct control of these small states. why not just carve them into small independent states, that could be easily manipulated by us.
pakistan waged terror against us all through the 80's and 90's. We never found out, remember, because they were our allies and made a significant portion of our intelligence cadres who blinded us to them.
Musharraf himself continued to support indian terror, till the paki nuclear scandal hit the fan. they also supported the taliban till then.
right now they are in a desperate damage control mode. But they still haven't dismantled their nuclear potential. on the contrary they are adding to their nukes and missiles.
they don't need such a big stockpile against india, they are stockpiling against america itself.
they haven't also shut down religious schools or outlawed parties like jamiati islami. they are co-operating at a minimal level, till they can build their nuclear stockpiles and then tell us to go to hell.
Once they build those stockpiles, they are going to revert back to terror and tell us to go to hell or risk a nuclear war.
we want to prevent that scenario from taking place by taking their nukes out, before they put them on a fleet of missiles.
you don't know how treacherous and dangerous this nation is, just look at its past.
they might still be behind events in iraq to prevent similar action against pakistan.
Do you know eventhough pakistan had contributed 10,000 troops to the first gulf war, its army chief was busy visiting iran and other islamic countries to garner a co-alition against the war and coming up with strategic defiance against us.
At the time of the iraq war, the paki president went running to both chirac and putin, but they spit on him, so he came running back. Ask chirac and putin, what musharraf told them.
small states are easier to control. Just like tajikistan, croatia and lithuania are easier to control.
small states don't have the might to aspire for global power. they don't have the might to resist US power and they have strong ethnic sentiment to ensure their survival, a sentiment that takes precedence over their islamic sentiment.
We wouldnt have a problem with these small states, the same way we don't have a problem with the kurds in iraq.
In such cases their ethnic sentiment takes precedence over the islamic sentiment and pits their interests against their islamic neighbors. the same say yugoslavs turned hostile to each other and the kurds are hostile to iraq.
You tell me 2/3 of the iranians are opposed to the regime, and yet the student protests fizzled in just 2 days.
do you believe a ruler could hold onto power with 2/3 of the people opposed to him? Is it the same people telling you
that pakistan was moderate state, eventhough it was supporting taliban and alqaeda.
never trust islamic western intelligence cadres. Iraq wouldnt have been a mess if they were on our side. we won the military
victory in days remember. Pakistan wouldnt have had the nukes if they were on our sides. WE wouldnt have had 911, because Pakistan would have been sanctioned back in 1993. There would be no paki nukes today. No iranian and libyan WMD program either. NO Wahhabi movement in saudi arabia, if these cadres were on our side. These cadres seem to have been responsible for
all this trouble. Because they were panislamists from either the days of the afghan war or shiite minorities banded together
by khomeini's agents before they joined us.
You can expect them to liquidate islamic defectors, but don't expect them to come down hard on terror, because these people are from the same camp.
They are such good liars that they would always put up sucn an elborate smoke screen to blind us to their islamic compatriots, while they use the war on terror to crack down on separatists like the kurds. This explains why we have never had even one, just one intelligence success story against the islamic world.
do you believe we would have been some impotent against the islamic world , if islamic intelligence cadres working for the west were on our side. How would the terrorists in iraq know where wolfowitz was staying?.
Since these people have ties with both the terrorists and islamic govts and since we have to rely on them as our eyes into the islamic and since we don't have translators to listen to them, they can frame anyone who opposes islam as a terrorists get rid of him, while they hide the terrorists and use them to shape our policy. Look at the way they are defending iran and pakistan.
if you look at the trouble's we face in the world today, you'd see pakistan is responsible for all of it.
They are the creators of alqaeda and the proliferators of nukes.
What is worse is they haven't agreed to even stop let alone dismantle their missile and nuclear programs.
they are also retaining their terror potential by giving amnesties to pakistani al qaeda fighters.
they haven't come up with a single move that would address terror decisively. the religious schools are still breeding
thousands of islamists. Parties like jamiati islami along ith pakistani intelligence itself might be behind the spate of al alqaeda attacks in iraq. Religious parties openly recruited in pakistan for the war in iraq, while the pakistan govt stood and watched. I mean if they aren't guilty of complicity, then why didnt they stop them.
However the greatest threat comes from the fact that the same people,who in the past who controlled terrorists like al qaeda and the taliban, today control the largest asset of islamic nukes.
We have seen their respect for human lives with the terror they waged in america, chechenya, india, israel, phillipines etc.
We have seen how they crooked us all along with IMF guys as president, women prime ministers, while all along their intelligence services were pulling the strings, fooling us with puppets and waging terror behind those puppets.
they just cannot be trusted with nukes.
Because of its nuclear stockpiles and to prevent them from adding to the stockpiles or their missile fleet,
pakistan should be taken out on an urgent basis preferably by russia and india.
Iran because of its WMD potential should follow suit next. It's WMD potential should be taken out by israel on an urgent basis, while an all out war should follow suit after the US elections, if it resorts to terror in the aftermath of those attacks.
While saudi arabia for it's financial support to terror and for the deep roots and penetration of the wahhabi movement within the kingdom should follow iran.
the three together might still be waging war against the US forces in iraq.
terror will not be addressed decisively till these three sponsors are addressed.
We should incorporate the largest and militant part of pakistan like Punjab into india. We should incorporate militant pashtunistan that is home to the taliban under a non pashtun majority from central asia.
While we declare the non islamic secular provinces into small independent states that would lend themselves well for manipulation by the US and provide us with a presence and important bases in the region.
Iran has the following ethnicities.
Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2
this shows that only 51% of iran is ethnic persian, while the rest is not.
we can incorporate the azeris into azerbaijan, the kurds can be merged with the kurds in iraq, while baluch with baluch from pakistan into a separate state.
saudi arabia can further be carved into small states like qatar.
Well, Britain drew the lines for Pak/India partition and current ME. Also Wahabies and Agha Khan where set in motion in 1909 and 1910 by the same. Here we are seeing the results. Anyone interested in addressing the real issues in current problems or should we just autonomies the region by individual square miles. While we are at it, distribute opium cheaply to the masses and buy back the opium ash for twice the price. Another implemented technique that Afghanistan was used for as a supplier. I think Middle East glowing in the dark and or partitioned like diagram paper is more of the same answers that brought us all here now. I suggest that these regions should to be run like corporations with people as shareholders. The ME should be enrolled into the global economy with a stake in its participation.
I only agree with you on the point of Saudi Arabia. Without the House of Saud, there is no "Saudi" Arabia.
Iran doesn't need to be split up. The people are aching for freedom and can handle their own country.
The American Communist Party and the fellow-traveling Left was very active in keeping the US out of the war while the Hitler-Stalin pact was in effect.
Then, when Hitler invaded Russia on June 22, 1941, everything suddenly turned 180 degrees
well why not autonomize the entire region.
Give the people liberty in countries based on their ethnicities
1- These ethnicities would be eternally grateful to us for their independence.
2- This will replace the islamic sentiment with ethnic sentiment.
3- which will in turn trash pan-islamism for good, when the ethnic sentiment is stronger than islamic sentiment.
4- It will rob the countries of the size to pursue global aspirations.
4- It will also rob them of the numbers, infrastructure or the wealth to pursue WMD's or sponsor terror.
I mean isnt this, what was done to russia and yugoslavia
If it worked for russia and yugoslavia, it would also work for iran, pakistan and saudi arabia.
Yugoslovia didn't work out too well...
Yes but we must not become complacent, or (heaven forbid) change leadership at this time. We need to stamp out the places where they find sanctuary, and continue to address where they are getting funding and teaching hatred. After all, a couple generations of no madrasas may mean the few remaining terrorists could be treated as criminals, instead of wariors in a great war against the west.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.