A View from the Eye of the Storm

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
I do not believe in our policy towards saudi arabia,  

No kidding? That's where you miss the point of the article. You're basically Saudi-centric or Saudi-phobic. You can't see anything else here.

Basically all you've said is Saudia does that and the US supports Saudia.

I think he shows there's a bit more to it than that.

For example:

The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment.

Pretty big important concept there, IMO. What do we do now?

Wait.... let me guess... this problem has its roots in Saudia, which is, of course, supported by the US.

Sheesh.

[Nash]

Well I don't.

Perhaps if the admin's actions were slightly more consistent with a war on terror, then I would...

Calling it what it really is would sort of "out" the whole thing. It would give this war a new yardstick by which to measure its success, and the tactics would change accordingly... I think.

But it will continue to be called this fuzzy "war on terror" because there are limitations to the extent the US is willing to go to actually win such a thing.

There's gotta be a parallel to Vietnam here somewhere.

[Toad]

BTW, you'll note he includes Saudia as part of the problem. So I guess you agree with him.

Just about everyone does, it's just that not everyone is fixated on Saudia to the exclusion of all else.

[Toad]

Nash, remember the outcry when Bush used "crusade" in a speech?

What do you think would happen if he switched to "The War Against Militant Islam"?

I'm thinking it would be very similar.

[Nash]

Right, I agree.

But it's like.... Either ya want to win and are committed to doing the things you need to do, or you don't.

I don't think you can have it both ways. The author in your post here certainly doesn't, most people agree with his remarks, and yet this guy wants to call it WWIII. Think about the outcry if THAT were to happen.

Vietnam was never officially declared a war, was it? It was as fuzzy as this "war on terror", and look at the results.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Right, I agree.

But it's like.... Either ya want to win and are committed to doing the things you need to do, or you don't.

I don't think you can have it both ways. The author in your post here certainly doesn't, most people agree with his remarks, and yet this guy wants to call it WWIII. Think about the outcry if THAT were to happen.

Vietnam was never officially declared a war, was it? It was as fuzzy as this "war on terror", and look at the results.

I think the US showed how commited we are... the rest of the world ( for most part) has shown how ignorant they can be.

[Nash]

If by committed you mean invading Iraq... it certainly shows commitment, to something....

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
If by committed you mean invading Iraq... it certainly shows commitment, to something....

committed to eliminating a threat. Syria and Iran next hopefully.

[Toad]

You and I basically agree, differing only on timing.

I'm beginning to drift towards the idea that the day will come when more countries than just the US are ready to declare a "War on Militant Islam".

Until then, I think it would be a mistake to change the name. It would probably help put it in perspective for the folks on our side. The folks on the other side are going to hear "US Crusaders are upon us!" which would negate anything we'd gain.

We may just have to wait until the crazies are whacking everyone. Which is pretty much what this author says, isn't it?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
You and I basically agree, differing only on timing.

I'm beginning to drift towards the idea that the day will come when more countries than just the US are ready to declare a "War on Militant Islam".

Until then, I think it would be a mistake to change the name. It would probably help put it in perspective for the folks on our side. The folks on the other side are going to hear "US Crusaders are upon us!" which would negate anything we'd gain.

We may just have to wait until the crazies are whacking everyone. Which is pretty much what this author says, isn't it?

excuse my ignorance, but who are you agreeing with and what do you mean by timing?

[Nash]

Totally, Toad.

But it's like a paradox.

On the one hand it would be ideal for everyone to get in on the game. And they (like the US admin) may shy away from accepting things as they are ("war against militant islam").

Yet by calling it "the war on terror" and following this fuzzy term with just as fuzzy tactics (if it is a wholesale war on terror, then I think the Iraq war can be called a tactic), it leads to a credibility problem which makes the rest of the world shy away from the fight as much if not more than if this whole thing was accepted for what it is, carefully spelled out and prosecuted as such.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Totally, Toad.

But it's like a paradox.

On the one hand it would be ideal for everyone to get in on the game. And they (like the US admin) may shy away from accepting things as they are ("war against militant islam").

Yet by calling it "the war on terror" and following this fuzzy term with just as fuzzy tactics (if it is a wholesale war on terror, then I think the Iraq war can be called a tactic), it leads to a credibility problem which makes the rest of the world shy away from the fight as much if not more than if this whole thing was accepted for what it is, carefully spelled out and prosecuted as such.

Nash, you are trying to use a word to define the war as an excuse to avoid the truth. Everyone knows who we are fighting.....you do too. Lets just call it "the war againt the people that want to kill us all."

Would that clarify it for the mainstream fence sitters? I doubt it.

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, you are trying to use a word to define the war as an excuse to avoid the truth.

Much like the coiners of the term "War on Terror", I suspect.

But replace one BS term with another? I don't think so.

Because the people who may want to "kill us all" aren't quite the same as the people who are apt to actually try such a thing. ie., Militant Islam. You can't go in and kill every uneducated and ill-informed citizen... it's the ones with the guns the bombs and the passports that should be recieving your full attention.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad

Basically all you've said is Saudia does that and the US supports Saudia.

No, you miss the point. We play both sides of the fence, either you stand for something, or you don't. By playing it the way we do, we cannot accomplish our goals. i.e., we can't tie Iraq to al-qeada, yet use the thought of it towards justifying an invasion. We can, however, tie saudi money and citizens to al-qeada, yet turn a blind eye to it.

I think he shows there's a bit more to it than that.

He makes a lot of valid points, but he makes some that are not, like painting muslims, as a whole, "dysfunctional", you do not find that bias?

For example:
"The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment."
Pretty big important concept there, IMO. What do we do now?

Again, you are painting with a broad brush. I do not think Jordan is a land of lawlessness, or Egypt, yet they are "dysfunctional", in his eyes, because they are muslim. I can think of other parts of the world that that are worse off than those two countries.

Wait.... let me guess... this problem has its roots in Saudia, which is, of course, supported by the US.

Your getting close, the US is fighting terrorists and supports the saudi government, who support terrorists. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail.

Sheesh.

[Naso]

Very interesting read.

Thank you, Toad.