First of all, where to put the bad guys has never been a problem in the US. We've probably got more space for incarceration than any place on this planet. Some of you obviously do not get the implications of Gitmo.

And though some of you will choke on this, Pataloco has it correct. Time to get off the high horse and admit that we do need the UN involved in this and other aspects of the Iraqi adventure.

Too many of you will give the initiative to the terrorists. It's not what they do that will cause our children to be involved in perpetual war, it's what we will do.

Do you honestly believe that the UN is a viable option? That the EU can agree on anything involving the Middle East?

What has changed in the last few months that I don't know about? I'm willing to listen......

Well Gunny, The UN is not the best of all worlds but our only other option seems to be trying to forge the ING into a credible fighting force - in country amidst chaos and bad intel. Compared to that option, the UN bears exploration.

The EU pretty much agreed to let us do it alone. I'm thinking we could use a little help right about now.

I'm not convinced that the UN is even a viable force. Odds are, that if they deployed into the arena, we would end up rescueing them over and over. They couldn't do the job, even if thier continued existence depended on it.

The only folks that admire the UN, are those that work at the UN. Lets put it this way, how many successful UN missions have occurred since inception? Quite a few, if all yer counting is those missions that involved handing out food, but if your talking about those that involved military force and application of same......the UN just can't do it and hasn't done it in the past. I haven't found anything to indicate that the UN forces have won any wars. Or did the UN make something happen along these lines that isn't recorded anywhere on the internet?

And as for the EU......haven't seen much capability come from that direction yet. Geez, they can't even decide on a common currency yet, much less a combined military force that can actually talk to each other and is transportable.

While what you are suggesting is admirable, in regards to GITMO, there is still a requirement for its existance, no matter how distastefull some people think of it. Those detained within need to be dealt with appropriately via a military tribunal. We need to be allowed to process them properly so they can get judged, and either released or officially incarcerated elsewhere. I'm not even calling for execution like I used to. My mind changed on that, as the realization hit that one can't make a corpse miserable. Although, there is a bit of satisfaction in making them dead.

Gunny, let's break it down. Let's agree for starters that the UN as an entity cannot successfully pour piss from a boot. But there are other ways they could lend assistance.

Let's take the French. I know that it's quite the fashion to bash them and some of it is highly deserved. Yet and still we could use a regiment or two of the French Foriegn Legion. Long ago and far away, when I was AD, I had the opportunity to serve with elements of the 2eme Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes. You may be surprised to know that these guys know their business and are not "surrender monkeys".

Let's take the Germans. We could certainly use an outfit such as 5./FschJgBtl 252 Kommando. Of course there are others.

Let's say they decided that they didn't want to send troops. Why couldn't they foot the bill for training ING elements out of country, away from the car bombs and chaos, the idea being that when these guys got back in country they would be fully trained and ready to throw down.

There are other ways they could be helpful but to keep this short I won't go into them here and you could probably extrapolate pretty well what I am getting at.

As far as Gitmo, it's time has come and gone as far as I'm concerned. You can't hold people in indefinite limbo as we seem to be doing. If we have a prisoner then read him his rights and set him up for trial. Give him a damn lawyer, let him make his case. If he's guilty let him meet his just deserts. If he's innocent let him go.

Gitmo has a severe image problem that we don't need as we struggle to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. There are plenty of other places you could put them. What's wrong with sending the Afghans back to the 'Stan and let them handle them? Think they would go to easy on 'em? I don't. Same for the other guys unless he comes from Syria or Iran or some other armpit in which case he stays with us.

There was never anything that I'm aware of that precluded us from giving them a speedy trial via tribunal or otherwise. We just didn't and that was a mistake.

And that's why Gitmo needs to go.

Thud,you make it sound easy."Let's use the FFL,let's use the Germans".Dude,they don't want to get involved.If they did why haven't they stepped forward and committed their respective miliatry units.
As far as Gitmo,what freaking difference if we put the terrs in Gitmo,North Dakota,Virgin Islands???Do you honestly think that would change the bleating leftists and their apologists from screaming "ATROCITY"??
The terrs have food,shelter,and until the WAR (remember we are at war)is over they will be locked down,as they should be.
The UN is an abomination.Who takes troops from Bangladesh,Nigeria,Zaire,seriously.You are serious in saying that the UN could broker a peace in Iraq?The UN is competent in distributing food relief to the third world,but only if the shooting isn't too intense.
I admire your idealism but question your view of real world solutions.

Thud...thanks for taking the time to respond. I know I get on one track and tend to follow it into oblivion. (think thats why I stayed in for twenty!) As for the Frenchies and Krauts, yeah, they do have some great outfits that do happen to know how to wage a war. Gotta give them credit for that. Too bad we aren't being offered thier services.

As for GITMO...you and I tend to think alike in that we can't hold them forever, thats why I keep on about the tribunals. We'd of had them started already if LAWYERS here in the states hadn't filed all them injuctions preventing this action. So if its anyones fault that GITMO is still open and those guy's are still in limbo-limbo land....I blame it on all the friggin lawyers and do-gooders amongst us. People should of just shut the feck up and let us do what we knew was right with them.

Beside, we will NEVER win over MUSLIMS. Remeber, we are ALL INFIDELS and ALWAYS WILL BE INFIDELS to them. Infidels are only around to be killed.

Well Guns, looks like we've found another subject we can agree upon. Lawyers. They can't go to heaven because God don't want 'em to screw it up and they can't go to hell because the devil is scared to death of 'em.

But as for Muslims it's kind of hard to figure. On the one hand we certainly do have allies who are Muslim, else why are we bleeding to give the Iraqis a shot at democracy? You will also note that the seductive idea of democracy seems to be catching on in several nations over in the sandbox and if successful these guys will tend to view us more as friends than enemies.

For these reasons, I don't believe that all of them neccessarily want us dead but there will always be some differences on how we view the world.

BTW, I also personally know that some of the same guys who read the Koran are also great fans of porno movies. Reality just doesn't run in a straight line.

quote:

Originally posted by nvr-btdt:
Thud,you make it sound easy...
...I admire your idealism but question your view of real world solutions.

Not so easy and I deal in real world solutions daily. If you read my whole post you will know that there are other ways they could be of assistance without actually committing troops.

We created a lot of acrimony when CIC basically told them to shove it. If you remember, they told us up front that if we want to go it alone then alone we shall be and they seem to be sticking to it, even enjoying the opportunity to rub our faces in it.

Yet at the same time the EU muckity mucks have resolved (recently) that the WORLD cannot afford a negative resolution in Iraq so you'll have to admit that there seems to be some wiggle room and they have exerted some diplomatic pressure upon Iran and Syria.

What it would take to actually get them to commit troops is another matter entirely since nobody (including us) wants to be caught in the middle of a civil war in the ME and that is a definite possibility.

As far as Gitmo, you have to ask yourself if it is working for us or against us. I say it is working against us and there are several other ways we could accomplish the op that Gitmo was supposed to. But it ain't.

I tend to live by a rather strange motto. "Kill the baby". This simply means that if your favorite thing is not working be cold hearted and get rid of it. Don't try to rearrange reality in order to save your pet idea simply because you love it so. BTW, this does not apply to humans or I would be in jail and have no children.

And herein lies the dilemna. We have made a baby in Iraq. It's a mean, ugly baby but it's still our baby. This is one baby that we absolutely cannot afford to kill and we've got to come up with some creative solutions to bring it to adulthood. Remember that stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

True the UN basically sucks but some of the decisions we have made regarding Iraq were very UN like. Like it or not, it is what it is. And that's for real.

quote:

Beside, we will NEVER win over MUSLIMS. Remeber, we are ALL INFIDELS and ALWAYS WILL BE INFIDELS to them. Infidels are only around to be killed.

Actually, that term is thrown around quite a bit, as well as "Jihad". Both of these terms have been "hijacked" by the extremist and well meaning (and not so well meaning) journalist. The Koran actually refers to "non-monotheists" (I forget the Arabic word) as the enemies of Islam. Jews and Christians were supposed to be "protected people" according to the Koran. Jihad means "struggle" and is used mostly in the sense of the Greater Jihad- a struggle against sin. The Lesser Jihad (seldom mentioned) is to take up arms to defend Islam. Now, if "mainstram" Muslims could just "hijack" these terms back to their original meanings, there might be less of a problem.
And now I'm done hijacking this thread.

Just heard that US military is negotiating head up with insurgents. Don't quite know what to make of it...

Concerning the U.S. negotiating with Iraqi insurgents: It's more telling of the Iraqi insurgents than the U.S. The U.S. is in a position to explore all options to end the conflict. The insurgents have one main option - military. Though they've been proficient with car bombs lately, I wonder if they're getting hammered pretty hard. Sooner or later they might get tired of getting beat down all of the time by the U.S. with their armor, standoff weapons, and tattletale neighbors.