[N1]

anti russia was a priority, al quaida was a minor treat and saddam was supported against iran of khomeiny, war has begun early and the only fact is that now its global. The war against the arabs has a thousand years at least, never stopped, now is in another stadium. In jugoslavia the socialist milosevic has made everything against islamic people in croatia, bosnia herzegovina and montenegro. The US foreign policy is not welcome since the cold war against soviets and even nowadays 16 years after the fall of berlin wall socialists havent understand that their ideology is dead. The great majority of those who are against US are socialists and fundamentalists and putin in russia had to move the army to tetchenia where they have terminated hundreds or thousands of islamic fighters. Now the problem with iran and north corea and at least its not a full scale war.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

No matter how well you boil the whole thing down, it will always come down to this simple fact:

1) The U.S. helped Al-Quaida in its infancy, literally in the 1980s in the anti-Russia war in Afghanistan. Fact.
2) Al-Quaida indubitably was involved in the WTC fiasco. Fact.
3) Therefore, the U.S. did indeed shat where it ate. Fact.

The U.S. helped OBL in the late 70's and 80's defeat Afghanistan
Al Qa'ida did indeed carry out the terrorist attacks on 9/11
However your premise does not follow a logical pattern.

The U.S. helped AQ and AQ was involved in WTC? How does (according to you) support the statement U.S. shat where it ate?


OBL did not form AQ until after Afghanistan and one of the sticking points for him was the Saudi Royal Family. In Afghan it was a loosely based organziation of freedom fighters (whatever you want to call them) aganist the USSR. AQ didn't really exist as an organization until the late 1980's (1987-->) Tensions were brewing before he turned his wrath on the US for two reasons.

1. US support of the Saudi Government
2. After 1991 the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia
3. To a lesser extent Western culture, support of Israel, etc.

[Squawks]

Al Qa'ida did not exist back then during the fight against the USSR, correct.

What existed? The Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). What's the MAK? A Mujahidin organization. What'a Mujahidin? A holy warrior fighting for the name of Islam.

So it boiled down to the simple fact that the U.S. garnered these Mujahidin. Now, who's part of Al Qa'ida? Mujahidins.

So I still have to stand by the fact that the U.S. did indeed shat where it ate - same applies with the whole Saddam fiasco. Who gave Saddam weapons in the past?

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Al Qa'ida did not exist back then during the fight against the USSR, correct.

What existed? The Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). What's the MAK? A Mujahidin organization. What'a Mujahidin? A holy warrior fighting for the name of Islam.

So it boiled down to the simple fact that the U.S. garnered these Mujahidin. Now, who's part of Al Qa'ida? Mujahidins.

So I still have to stand by the fact that the U.S. did indeed shat where it ate - same applies with the whole Saddam fiasco. Who gave Saddam weapons in the past?

You are still inferring that all Mujahidins are against the U.S which is not true. After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan U.S. funding dried up however the "movement against the West" didn't become a reality until the late 1990's. It wasn't because of US involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980's. It was US involvement in the Middle East is what set the early Al Qa'ida and OBL organization against the US and Saudi Governments.
During the rash of airplane hijackings in the 70's 80's and early 90's what were their demands? Against Israel.
Where were the bombings? Middle East (Hint: Israel)
If you really look at the picture you don't see a major shift in terrorists targeting the US until after the Gulf War (1991). Then you see the shift to a more against Western/US/Saudi stance.

The US had it's own problems with internal terrorist organizations, communist remnants (German Nightclub bombing) , Black militants (Nation of Islam) and separatists/cultists (too many to list) at this point.


What kind of weapons are you talking about?
If your talking about nuclear capability? Then it's the French.
If you are talking about WMD capability? That is hard to ascertain
If you are talking about conventional weapons? Than it is the U.S.


Just because the US gave Saddam weapons in the fight aganist Iran (Remember this is during the Cold War) did not give him a right to invade Kuwait nor the severge ecological damage to the Arabian Sea and the Middle East.
Iraq fought aganist Iran and used chemical weapons...the first proven case chems have been used in a war since 1914. He also used it on the Kurdish population as well.

Saddam fiasco? Do tell...?

[Squawks]

Hey, JB - I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot of this Middle Eastern jibber jabber...which I don't. You, on the other hand, look to know quite a bit more than I do. About the Saddam fiasco - yeah, the U.S. gave Saddam conventional weapons - I didn't mean to imply they were the ones who gave him weapons of mass destruction but on the other hand, it's the U.S. who helped bloat Saddam's head big enough so that he would become ridiculously militaristic to the point where the development of mass weapons becomes an issue in Iraq.

My point about the MAK isn't to infer that all Mujahidins are against the U.S. - instead...the Mujahidins that ARE against the U.S. --- answer this---did they all spawn from MAK/affiliates?

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Hey, JB - I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot of this Middle Eastern jibber jabber...which I don't. You, on the other hand, look to know quite a bit more than I do. About the Saddam fiasco - yeah, the U.S. gave Saddam conventional weapons - I didn't mean to imply they were the ones who gave him weapons of mass destruction but on the other hand, it's the U.S. who helped bloat Saddam's head big enough so that he would become ridiculously militaristic to the point where the development of mass weapons becomes an issue in Iraq.

My point about the MAK isn't to infer that all Mujahidins are against the U.S. - instead...the Mujahidins that ARE against the U.S. --- answer this---did they all spawn from MAK/affiliates?

During the early 1990's no. Most were against the Saudi Government and their supporters (West). Most of the fighters in Afghanistan were from all over the Muslim world in the 1980's but mostly from Saudi, Pakistan, and other countries. Once the movement became radicalized against the Saudi's Anti-Western was the next thing to follow because of a couple key reasons I've reiterated before.
1. US forces in Saudi Arabia
2. US support of Saudi Government
3. US support of Israel
4. US interference in Middle East
5. Western Culture

Even today how many times do you hear on the news about the:
US conspiracy aganist Muslims?
US and Zionist conspiracy against Sunni, Muslims, etc.
US control over Saudi Arabia?
The perverseness, decadence of Western Culture?
Blame everything on US or Israel.

Now think if you were fed this on a weekly basis. This is why it is dangerous when any radical (be it left, right, centrist, fascist, socialist, non-religious, or religious) doctrine has complete control in a country. The scales are tipped by a large majority to one side. The result of this in this case is Saudi Arabia (religious). Religious extremes, disassifcation with government, uneducated, etc...There are many countries which fit this example.
(In this case Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia)

But even in Islam, not all extremists are uneducated. Most have a high school or higher equivent education yet remain blinded by their radical religion.

[Squawks]

Do you ever wonder how things would be different had the U.S. refused to engage itself in any Middle-eastern policies (including all the of Israel fiascos) and activities (including the anti-USSR bologney, gulf-war, helping Iraq invade Kuwait, blah blah blah).

I wonder how these Middle Easterners would feel about the U.S. if we just kept to our own damn business? Probably the oil, eh?

Pretty funny because I don't see much U.S. activity/involvement in more than a handful of countries in political turmoil in Africa and South America. Oh, the ironies.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Do you ever wonder how things would be different had the U.S. refused to engage itself in any Middle-eastern policies (including all the of Israel fiascos) and activities (including the anti-USSR bologney, gulf-war, helping Iraq invade Kuwait, blah blah blah).

I wonder how these Middle Easterners would feel about the U.S. if we just kept to our own damn business? Probably the oil, eh?

Pretty funny because I don't see much U.S. activity/involvement in more than a handful of countries in political turmoil in Africa and South America. Oh, the ironies.

The Cold War was a necessary war to win. If the US remained isolationist the USSR would be a major force today. Korea, Africa and portions of South America would for the most part remain under Communism. It's debatable to say but the Middle East would eventually of been dragged into picking sides in the Cold War.

The Israel situation was a result of the WWI carving up of the Ottoman Empire. After WWII the Allied Powers Britain and France basically are the ones responsible for the creation of Israel. The 1948 bombing by Jewish freedom fighters (King David Hotel) remains the most successful terrorist bombing in history since it lead to the creation of Israel.

Before 1948 Jews, and Arabs lived side by side...now 50 years later it seems to have no end in sight.

The US did not help Iraq invade Kuwait...I don't know where you are getting that from?


But it is all about US foreign policy and US security. After the OPEC embargo the US realized the Middle East in the future will be the number one priority for the economic success of the US. One of the reasons why we remain so involved in the Middle East right now. If Africa carried the same weight as the Middle East, we would be all over Africa securing US strategic interests for US dominance.

It's what any country would do, and the US is no exception but we apply the use of soft power immensely before resorting to hard power.

[Squawks]

The US didn't help Iraq invade Kuwait per se - but they did give Iraq conventional weapons which would inevitably be used in the invasion in Kuwait, no?

You have good points in engaging in middle-eastern foreign policy (contrary to other parts of the world). I agree with them.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Squawks

The US didn't help Iraq invade Kuwait per se - but they did give Iraq conventional weapons which would inevitably be used in the invasion in Kuwait, no?

You have good points in engaging in middle-eastern foreign policy (contrary to other parts of the world). I agree with them.

Thanks

Makes you feel good we have people who actually know the situation and know how to look at it from their perspective and the US perspective.

Most of us Intel guys are like this. You must first understand the enemy in order to predict him.

Sad to say but it seems like Politicians know more than us at times. For example I completely disagree with the Dubai Ports Deal.

Congress has no business (worry about security) over one of the best firms in the world when we have our own glaring security problems which remain unresolved since 2001. US ports have for the most part been foreign owned for the last 20-30 years. The Media blew this so far out of proportion that it forced Congress to act.

US people will still work the ports.
US will still be in charge of security. I don't see the US customs and US coast Guard becoming obsolete over this.
It's a buy out of a British firm which currently control the ports...it's not some evil Arab conspiracy against the US or an attempt to ascertain our security methods.
UAE has been one of our best partners in terms of the GWOT which of course the government cannot disclose.
The deal seems racist against Arabs since the United Kingdom currently runs our ports in question.
I could list a dozen more but I'm getting tired...I need sleep

Think about it, if it didn't garner as much Media attention as it did...would Congress really care about this issue?

[Dizzy330i]

Originally Posted by JB 330ci

Thanks

Makes you feel good we have people who actually know the situation and know how to look at it from their perspective and the US perspective.

Most of us Intel guys are like this. You must first understand the enemy in order to predict him.

Sad to say but it seems like Politicians know more than us at times. For example I completely disagree with the Dubai Ports Deal.

Man, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but a 24 year old self-titled "Intel" guy that refers to his colleagues as "most of us Intel guys", publicly disclosing his sensitive position and casual familiarity with information that he "can't disclose", all the while continually spelling "would've" incorrectly as "would of", well it all seems a little fantastical to this casual reader.

I'm not implying that your knowledge is questionable. I agree with you on many points, JB. It just seems a little out-of-character for someone with a rather dangerous job, especially all the "Intel" talk on an unsecured public server recording your IP and routing information on semi-permanent logs.

--Just curious about something you said. What do you mean by your complete disagreement with the Dubai ports issue?

And what is your party affiliation? Seeing as you have been of voting age for the past two elections, surely you must have made use of the system that has made our country as great and as bad as it has been at different points during its short history. I'll be forthcoming and concede that I have not voted for our current president, not in '04 and not in '00.

Again, I just want to know more about where you're coming from. After all, in your words, "You must first understand the enemy in order to predict him."


Not that you're my enemy, of course.

[N1]

Arab world is vast if you have noticed from west africa to russia and middle east to philipines. The religious issue is the factor of union and the arab empire wich invaded europe has the center in baghdad. They dont like western culture and they dont like israel, they consider us like infidels dogs. Obviously arab world is based like monarchy and whenever the sistem fall surges a new monarchy of religious leaders. They resist any change and even in saudi arabia laws are very peculiar. How can you and we pretend that nothing happened? I think like one great republican, peace by force, because enemies are always there, and they dont have christian culture they kill for virgins in paradise. I believe there they will face a sign WE RAN OUT OF VIRGINS ...

[N1]

had the center*

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by Dizzy330i

Man, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but a 24 year old self-titled "Intel" guy that refers to his colleagues as "most of us Intel guys", publicly disclosing his sensitive position and casual familiarity with information that he "can't disclose", all the while continually spelling "would've" incorrectly as "would of", well it all seems a little fantastical to this casual reader.

I'm not implying that your knowledge is questionable. I agree with you on many points, JB. It just seems a little out-of-character for someone with a rather dangerous job, especially all the "Intel" talk on an unsecured public server recording your IP and routing information on semi-permanent logs.

--Just curious about something you said. What do you mean by your complete disagreement with the Dubai ports issue?

And what is your party affiliation? Seeing as you have been of voting age for the past two elections, surely you must have made use of the system that has made our country as great and as bad as it has been at different points during its short history. I'll be forthcoming and concede that I have not voted for our current president, not in '04 and not in '00.

Again, I just want to know more about where you're coming from. After all, in your words, "You must first understand the enemy in order to predict him."


Not that you're my enemy, of course.

Let's see where to begin. How about with would've. LOL I have a habit of spelling it in this fashion when I type. Yes I should use spell-check more often. Bad habits are very hard to break at times. I'll make an attempt at correcting the “would have” and “would of” thing.

I am 24 years old. I completed my Bachelor’s and Masters Degree in Intelligence and I specifically said this in another thread. I have the position I have because of my experience with the Middle East, Contacts, and I'm very good at my job. I'm not cut out for a job in DC (yet) because of the politics involved. I'm more of a "field" person and I like engaging in my work which brings about results. You can do the same from an office in DC but there is a…disconnect. I don't think you might understand what I'm talking about in this regard.

- Intelligence is not sensitive per se. I work in the Intelligence Community made up of various organizations. When I talked about job description/title I said I don't exist. It was an attempt at humor. Someone working for the CIA as a case officer I would not expect to see on a site similar to this.

- Many people have dangerous jobs in Iraq and the Middle East. Some are extremely dangerous (EOD) and some are very safe (Secretary) If the enemy targets me they already know everything they need to know about me. This isn't something like...hey guys I have a convoy leaving out at 0700 from BIAP wish me luck

- The government has much better systems than any public server. Now of course the technical details are classified but do you think I would just hop on a computer and surf the net. You must also understand that the government has it's own internet at a classified level. You cannot jump to the internet to the government classified internet on the same computer. They require completely different computers which are not connected in any fashion. So for all intensive purposes I could be surfing on my private laptop hooked up to a wireless provider in Baghdad, Kuwait, UAE for that matter.

- BTW, I am surfing on my private laptop hooked up to a provider in Baghdad, piped through Kuwait. I also use my government computer here at work to do some web surfing and such. Don't confuse that with open-source intelligence which involves data-mining open source networks for information. Every country has the ability to do this...well everyone with an internet connection at least.

- I disagree with Congress with the handling of the Dubai issue. People just don't understand how important the UAE is as a GWOT partner. Furthermore, I see no problem with an Arab company running ports in the United States. Like I stated before foreign companies have ran our ports for decades.
1. It is a take over of a British company P&E LLoyd which currently runs a few ports in the US
2. The dockworkers are not going to be replaced; it will still be run by Americans here in the US.
3. They run management and operations at ports, not security. Security belongs to DHS, US Customs, and Coast Guard.
4. The deal is racist. There is no way to dispute this issue.
5. It doesn't matter if the company is American or Arab, AQ can infiltrate either organization and wreak havoc at the ports because of ongoing security lapses which have yet to be fixed.

- My party affiliation? I didn't know that was a determining factor in presenting facts. The higher you go up in any bureaucracy you will find the department heads, cabinet ministers, and Cabinet are more politician than anything else. In a few cases they have the right credentials for the job but for the most part they don't. If I was the DNI I would likely be fired because I am no politician. Well I would of
"Resigned"

- What I don't like are ignorant comments. For example I have Liberal and Conservatives working for me. I have a Neo-Con who is one of the most fanatical of Bush supporters and refuses to listen to another point of view.” All Liberals are evil." I have Liberals who are anti Bush "Bush is an idiot." I quash both sides when they present opinions or when politics detract from the work environment. Very few people have the ability to separate themselves and to form a true independent stance. I am one of the few people who are able to think with a free mind. I stated this concept of thinking in another thread on how to separate you and to form a true view free from bias. Think of it in the same case of an extremist blinded by religion. They refuse to listen to the other side.

- On issues which deal with ethics, morality and philosophy, you can consider me as a Centrist with leanings towards Liberalism/Conservatism. If you want to know my stance on a particular issue just ask. But in these cases it more beliefs than facts. Granted there are moral and ethical "truths" so to speak but stances on these kinds of issues vary widely. It is not the same truth as "killing someone in cold-blood is murder" truth. Do you understand or do I need to expound on this point?

- Yes I have very strong and formulated ideas backed up by facts. That's why I said it would be very hard to debate with me. Not trying to sound like an elitist but this is my job. I am an intellectual who enjoys debates since it fine-tunes my skills and keeps me sharpened, focused, and open to different views.

-Hope that clears some stuff up for ya.

[poldim]

Originally Posted by Hitman999

Hi,

Here is a video documentary on 911 ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...59923762628848

Anyone here watched this?

I watched it all and found it very interesting!

The first link I posted in the original thread for videos. Look at it.

[poldim]

Originally Posted by Squawks

3) Therefore, the U.S. did indeed shat where it ate. Fact.

The US and its citizens do this on a daily basis...

[Dizzy330i]

JB:

Wow. You are a very interesting guy. You have a pretty awesome job. You’ve made very efficient time in college, too. Two degrees in intelligence…I’m sorry for my own, well, lack of intelligence, but what schools in the U.S. offer this kind of program? It seems like a very cool field!

I know you don’t MEAN to sound like an elitist, but you’ll forgive my saying that you seem pretty accomplished at doing this! You’re right, however. I don’t understand what you mean by a “disconnect”, but your own social indicators would probably advise you to either explain yourself clearly at points like these, or refrain from writing them--unless, of course, you WERE trying to sound like an elitist. What do you mean by “disconnect”? Is it an unexplainable disparity, hopeless to attempt to define? I have to beg for a little more credit here.

I’ll have to continue to excuse myself for not knowing exactly what you mean, but I can’t possibly know every acronym you come up with: EOD (Explosive ordnance detection?), BIAP (Baghdad Int’l), and so on. (I didn’t even know GWOT was being used as a common acronym, especially with the political nature of the phrase “global war on terrorism”.)

As for government information systems, I see what you mean. It might be possible that you have no sensitive information on your unencrypted partition. I should also give the government more credit. (For all intents and purposes, “for all intensive purposes” is not the correct idiom, and it really does away with credibility. This is why it’s better to stay away from idioms.)

I agree with you on the Dubai issue. It’s just terrible timing to make a bid like that public and expect the understanding of people who, moments before, had no idea what P&O (assuming this is what you meant by P&E) was. It’s all so indirect. I think it’s safe to say that if Singapore’s PSA had won the bid, this would be a non-issue. It’s very sad that it all became so political, and racist, as you said.

Oh, party affiliation is considerably important in determining opinion, not facts. Your skirting of the issue will have to mean you either refuse to acknowledge the importance of voting, or are somewhat conservative in ideology, as I expect. The DNI has to behave politically because of his prominence and visibility, but if you believe that you aren’t being political right here on E90POST, then I would disagree, of course. Ignorant commentators abound, another one of your statements I agree with. But the illusion of knowledge is a mantle to be worn, as well. True neutrality does not exist. This is especially true on the fertile ground of knowledge; it is all too easy to have an opinion sprout up when you stand on a mountain of knowledge, as I’m sure you do.

It also goes without saying that fact is one thing, and the establishment of “truths” upon those facts a very different thing itself. (The quotation marks serve a purpose.) This is not something you need to “expound on”. Refer to my second paragraph above for what you should. I have to also point out that your last paragraph is very reminiscent of “legalese” or politician-speak. Placing yourself on a platform where you are less vulnerable will only make you more ignorant, as you blind yourself to the constellation of “truths” (read: opinions) that move the mind further towards lucidity.

Thanks for clearing some stuff up for me.

[JB 330ci]

The school I attended was JMIC or Joint Military Intelligence College located at Bolling AFB in DC. It is the only school which is officially accredited to teach Intelligence related subjects at a classified level. You must have 90 credits to attend the school and it requires residency (1 year) in order to attend for either degree.
http://www.dia.mil/college/

A disconnect. Hmmm…I would feel detached from the field? Does this make sense to you? It is very difficult to define or explain…and it is not easy to put in simplistic terms either.

Yes, blame the military for that one. I served 4 years in the military. Acronyms are much easier to use than to spell out the entire term. (Yes I completed my BS while serving in the military...if you look at the requirments for the college they are strickly limited to the government. I love online classes so I could muster 90 credits to attend the college. Plus CLEP tests will allow you to skip some of the freshman and beginning sophmore classes.)

Idioms…yes you got me there. Even with writing reports and with college my English is not at the level I would like it to be. (ending sentence with to be ) But the only way to improve English is by reading and writing which over time will increase your vocabulary and writing skills. My Thesis contained so many English errors I wanted to throw the paper way. I continually struggle with English even though imy skills are far superior than 4 years ago.

Agreed. Yes you are correct I meant P&E and I agree with your statement.

Yes, facts and knowledge leads to a more educated decision or a more educated opinion based on facts. It does not necessary mean it is right or true but one would expect someone with knowledge to make a better informed decision than someone lacking knowledge. True neutrality does exist to an extent. If two people came up to me with a problem…I am viewed as the neutral person. I am supposed to listen to the facts and make a decision based on those facts without letting bias or personal feelings cloud the matter. That I believe is true neutrality, but I am interested to hear your definition?

Your last statement I will wholeheartedly agree with. Those with knowledge sometimes believe they are better than others because their knowledge is superior in the matter. In certain fields like Physics, Medicine, Rocketry, Aeronautical Engineering, etc… only knowledge in those fields allow you to make decisions in the same field. Other fields like Intelligence, Business Management, Security, etc…are a combination of people who have: considerable knowledge, experience, expertise in the “field”, “thinking outside the box”, and/or for lack of a better word other traits.

My party affiliation is for determining opinions? I fail to see how being a Republican or Democrat would cause me to think a certain way or view issues in a “Republican” or “Democratic” way. It may apply to some people but it does not apply to everyone. A specific way of thinking has been labeled Republican or Democrat in the United States and this label should be dissolved. Why? Because if I think Republican on one issue, I am automatically labeled a Republican however my view on a different issue falls in the Democratic realm. So what does this make me? You can’t be both. Now we are getting into Political Science here and I don’t want to digress further along this route.
You can infer from a persons’ choices and opinions they have leanings toward a certain party but that does not necessary make them a member of said party. If they tell you than you can infer they believe in certain positions on specific issues but this is not always the case. I prefer to use Liberal or Conservative because these terms are more defined than the two political parties.

Am I being political? Does anything I have said so far support this assertion? Do I take a stance on any issue? Yes, I do take stances on issues based on facts. Our stances may differ but we should be able to talk in a civil manner on why those stances exist.
But does this mean I “am being political”? No. See the difference?

I see what you are getting at here. “Truths” based on facts…I see where you are going here since you say they are opinions and I labeled them as “truths”. I was strictly speaking in an ethical, moral, or philosophical sense.
Fact: A murder was committed. It was in cold-blood.
Truth: Morality speaking murder is wrong.
Opinion: Murders are evil.

And compare it to this if you take out the ethical, moral or philosophical sense.
Fact: Sunni’s commit the most attacks against Coalition Forces
Truth: ?
Opinion: All Sunni’s are bad

Outside of Ethics, Morals, and Philosophy there are no truths. Only facts and opinions exist.

My platform is stronger because I have facts behind my way of thinking. More facts does not necessary constitute a stronger position. I present facts and assess the facts in an opinion. The opinion you don’t have to agree with but I would like to know why you disagree.


I bet we lost a majority of people during this discussion. "My brain hurts now after thinking about all of this" They say.

[N1]

you put to much pressure in yourselves, believe it or not as we saw with denmark press they want only a great war against us all. The holy war of ala, jihad, until all infidels are away of the holy territory. That fact is the central issue and as it was in africa i believe the best way is to leave them and control their moves day and night. But with central intelligence and military special operations, no more regular army occupation and in irak the army should leave baghdad calling all the terrorist groups out of the city. As soon as they have a new irak army and a regular police force. They cant be there forever and the time to get out is very important, british have warned they will by 2007. And afghanistan is also a problem but there i defend it could be sooner. Now is iran crisis and the risk is that military wing argue that is needed a regular intervention. That is what they want to gain more young fighters in wich they put their kamikaze ideals, the best way is to strike and leave with the explanations only in UN as a police force. My country is supporting without fighting power but we cant expect a great evolution by that kind of people, they like to live that way.