Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Karnak on April 10, 2007, 05:19:12 PM
-
When President Bush declared "War on Terror" he comitted the United States to an unwinnable, eternal war. He comitted us to something that simply cannot be won using military, or even police forces. You cannot wage war on a concept as concepts cannot be killed. The same is true of war on a tactic, terrorism in this case, as tactics do not vanish due military force being applied in a given place and time. Even if forgotten, there is no method to prevent the recreation/reinvention of such concepts and tactics.
What President Bush should have committed us to is the utter destruction of Al Qaeda and its allies and supporters. Nothing more, nothing less. Let the complete annilation of that terrorist organization speak to the others. It would have been a goal with fixed objectives and an obtainable goal.
Now, we have an endless morass and laws that run counter to American traditions at home.
This Administration has committed us to an eternal war on the basis of interventionism and hubris. These are not remotedly conservative traits, but rather traits most often associated with the likes of Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson. That the nominally conservative American party has been suckered into supporting this vis a vis backing the Party is a shame as it runs inherently counter to everything the Goldwaterian Republican Party stood for.
And so, here we are with no way out other than to lose face and deal with a world made more dangerous due to our actions.
Not even if those responsible, President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secratary of State Rice, former Secratery of Defense Rumsfeld, Rove and others were to fall on their swords would it help assuage the situation in the least at this point.
How is it that the conservative party in the United States was so rapidly and thoroughly subverted that it has become the major, and willing, instrument of the most unconservative foreign policy we have ever had?
-
One thing that I should point out here is that I am, in many ways, conservative. My posts here have lead many to believe that I am some kind of leftwing radical. This is far from the truth.
I strongly believe in fiscal discipline. Tax cuts, for example, are fine so long as there are spending cuts to match them.
I do not believe in stomping around in other people's countries unless the situation is way out of hand, such as Nazi Germany or Rowanda.
I believe that justice should be color, gender and orientation blind, something it currently fails at.
I believe that people should not be told how to live, nor should the government presume that people are guilty without active evidence to suggest such.
I believe people should be allowed to arm themselves with weapons, barring things like artillery, bombs, chemical gases, nukes, ect.
These are all conservative views. This is why I am dismayed by the hijacking that has happened to our political system in the United States.
-
You sure as hell can win the war on Terror.
It's called Total War. The other side loses when they realize how ****ed they are because they messed with us.
I bet an Nuclear ICBM doing circles above Mecca would win the war pretty ****ing quick.
-
Only if all terrorists were muslim. As that is not true, your statement is false.
And I am skeptical it would stop even muslim terrorists.
-
Good post.
-
shoulda-woulda-coulda, so what you wana do now, run away, surrender,
convert to islam,elect hillary?
always complaints, never answers.
-
Its g od point.
But I think a good counterpoint is that he formally recognised that this was an eternal war already being waged on us since before 9/11.
Inasmuch as we were going ot be targets in this war whether we wanted to be or not. We might as well recognise it and become proactive in it as opposed to reactive.
To his credit. whether you agree with him or not, He has said all along that this was going to last a long time
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Only if all terrorists were muslim. As that is not true, your statement is false.
And I am skeptical it would stop even muslim terrorists.
The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY are muslims. Once you've quelled the muslim problem, 99% of the terrorist problem is fixed.
The terrorists threaten to hit us where it hurts. Why don't we grow a pair of testicles, and promise to hit them back ten times harder?
When they realize the cost of ****ing with this great country is so enormous, then they will not do whatever they want in their little minds. Sure, they might blow up one of our buses. But we just took out the terrorists's home mosque / church, incinerating every single family member of that terrorist. Every single friend of that terrorist is dead. Every single person who might have remotely even known that terrorist is dead. The support base for the terrorists drops to nothing.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Only if all terrorists were muslim. As that is not true, your statement is false.
When was the last major terrorist attack that wasn't carried out by muslims?? I agree with you that not all of them are muslims but by far the largest and most dangerous percentage of them are. Most of the European groups have calmed down over the years, because they finally realized that their political views were outdated and it was just easier to negotiate.
The muslim terrorist believe God has told them to do these things they are doing. They don't do it for political power. They do it because they think anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is sub human. So what is the rest of the world supposed to do against a threat like that? Wait until they have enough power and start putting people in concentration camps, burning them alive, gassing them, or nuking them just because they think we don't deserve to live because we're not human beings worthy of life?
That is the fight we are in. You don't believe it? I dare you to go to the middle east and walk down a street with a cross hanging around your neck. I bet you wouldn't make it 2 blocks before someone cuts your head off.
These people that are "believers" of Islam are worse than Hitler ever thought of being. I've known a few Islamic people and for the most part they were just as freindly as can be until the subject of religion came up. I asked a guy I used to know to explain Isalm to me. Within ten minutes I was actually starting to get scarred with some of the stuff he was telling me. He told me to my face that because I am Catholic, even though we were freinds he was duty bound to convert me to Isalm or kill me if Jihad was declared. What kind of crap is that?
Call it profiling, call it racism, call it what you want, but I do not and never will trust anyone who believes in Islam.
-
Dude.
They have hated us sence they took our people prisoner from a boat and we sent in marines and kicked the ever living dog **** out'a them.
kept there ground for a while,then left when washington wouldnt send reinforcements.
A big to all of them.
Some people need a people to hate, in our case.
its a full religion.
Black hawk down, them people were not "war lords" like it said on tv, they were terrorests seting up camp.
ONLY reason we got back one pilot is because they knew if they flat executed him a seal team would have wiped that town,its people and them clear off the $^%&in' map.
Belive me,we drop a few "realy realy big none nukeular bombs" on the ****ers,we will see murder bombings stop real &@^#in' quick.
And that mutah #$%'er up in iran better watch his oscar,hes about to be neck deep in marines.
"Throws two cents"
Right wrong or indiffrent.
"EDIT:Yes, you are very correct. It is there godly spell bound DUTY to convert people,or murder them in cold blood with ever justification to do so.
With them it realy is "Tomorrow your friends, before a holywar..today your most feared enemy."
-
Karnak I feel the same way about the War on Poverty. Poverty is also a concept that can't be killed. Who would you even bomb?
It's almost like labels shouldn't always be taken literally.
Maybe the War on Terror is a neo-con code for attacking anybody that threatens to destroy us, our allies, or our way of life. How is that not an American tradition?
-
So, if Genocide is the answer, what exactly is the question?
-
FLS,
That and the War on Drugs are other examples of things that are stupid. At least the War on Poverty doesn't kill people is all that can be said for it.
Because that isn't what Bush said we were going to do. He said we were going to use American might to interceed anywhere terrorism crops up. Africa, for example, were there is tremendous ammounts of terrorist activity by lots of different religions/ethnicities.
As to those whining about the muslims and why they hate it, it isn't for some idiotic thing like "Our freedom". As Buchanan said, that is an argument that insults the intelligence of a 2nd grader. If you want to know why they hate us, just listen to what they say. They are being very clear on the matter. It is our government, both sides of the isle, that is making things murky.
They hate us because we are in the holy land (Saudi Arabia), for our biased treatment of the people involved in the Isreali conflicts, for our meddling in their governments such as when the CIA overtrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah as a US puppet. They are very blunt about it.
As to what do we do, well, we can start fixing the bloody problem or we can keep shooting ourselves in the feet and saying what a great job were doing while we do it. Your call.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So, if Genocide is the answer, what exactly is the question?
What is Iran planning for Israel?
-
Originally posted by FLS
What is Iran planning for Israel?
Not genocide as that would be Irannian genocide too. Certainly they'd like to see Israel go away, but they won't get that wish. They just have to learn to live with Israel in the world and Israel needs to learn to live with Iran in the world. MAD might work. It worked for us and the USSR.
And no, I don't buy that the Irannians are insane and would give nukes to terrorists.
Kim Il Jung on the other hand....
Sorry, read about it, don't listen to the propaganda.
-
Every "war on" the party masters wage is not winnable; the .gov clowns have declared war on cancer, drugs, poverty... all miserable failures, but I'll bet the political points 'at the time' were good tho, probably got a bump in the poll numbers & rallied the party slaves too.
The war on "terror" is just as stupid and un-winnable... what is "terror", or a "terrorist" anyway?.. those who kill the most Americans on TV? it certainly isn't those who have killed / victimized the most innocent US citizens, that prize belongs to our fabulous southern neighbor... I defy any lamer politician to walk the streets of North Hollywood at night for awhile, then say with a straight face the people in this area aren't being "terrorized". Yet these no war on these "terrorists", er I mean poor folks who lost all their documents.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That and the War on Drugs are other examples of things that are stupid. At least the War on Poverty doesn't kill people is all that can be said for it.
It's clear that the War on Drugs hasn't been effective.
Originally posted by Karnak
...And no, I don't buy that the Irannians are insane...
Sorry, read about it, don't listen to the propaganda.
You believe your enemies but not your President , one is evil and the other has a just cause. :aok
-
kArnAk fOr pResIDenT :rolleyes:
-
Sorry, not buying it. The argument completely ignores the difference between fundamental Islamic Fascism and the rest of the Middle East.
Oh, and yes, you CAN make terrorism unacceptable and ineffective. You simply NEVER negotiate, and you NEVER give in. You make the response to acts of terror so swift and so horrible that it becomes obvious to even the most hardened devotee that terror will not achieve their goal, but will instead yield only their destruction.
-
""They hate us because we are in the holy land (Saudi Arabia)""
we are in the holy land? well EXCUES ME !
if i told you my opinion of "holy land" scuzzy would ban me.
i have a idea, we get out of "holy land" and the muslims get out of my USA, how does that sound ? fair? :furious
-
Originally posted by john9001
""They hate us because we are in the holy land (Saudi Arabia)""
we are in the holy land? well EXCUES ME !
if i told you my opinion of "holy land" scuzzy would ban me.
i have a idea, we get out of "holy land" and the muslims get out of my USA, how does that sound ? fair? :furious
as far as i know, there is no arabic/islam millitary country stationed inside
the USA?
-
When President Bush declared "War on Terror" he comitted the United States to an unwinnable, eternal war. He comitted us to something that simply cannot be won using military, or even police forces. You cannot wage war on a concept as concepts cannot be killed. The same is true of war on a tactic, terrorism in this case, as tactics do not vanish due military force being applied in a given place and time. Even if forgotten, there is no method to prevent the recreation/reinvention of such concepts and tactics. - Karnak
I disagree. Bush could not commit the US to an eternal war. Bush simply acknowledged the conflict. We do not allow Presidents to serve more than 8 years, as you know. Right now, you can see Democrats attempting to withdraw from Bush's committments to "the war against terrorism."
That won't make our enemies go away. I don't think we can simply decide not to be involved... Bush's acknowledgement of this fact is really what his legacy will be. Time will tell ....
-
If we're still around in 20 years this will be interesting to look back on. I have my opinions and I rarely state them in open forum becuase they are my ideas and if you disagree I will not be able to change your mind.
Fighting a 'war' in the court of public or world opinion is about as smart as dancing naked on a fire ant bed.
WAR is just that. You find the enemy, you destroy the enemy, you destroy all of his resources. You utterly and totally defeat him and yes.. along the way some innocent bystanders will die, be maimed, orphaned, widowed, etc.
Is that sad? Absolutely. It sucks that you live in a land where people with a little or a lot of power or were just the bullies on the block put you in the crosshairs.
I may be insensitive but I'll say this. Better your neighborhood / country than mine.
I want a country that when we send our soldiers into harms way that the enemy says 'well gee if I put that IED there and it kills one of their soldiers they're going to hunt down everybody I know and love and remove them from the gene pool'. I want a country that when the first private steps off of the plane, chopper, or landing craft, that our enemies KNOW that they are in for a world of hurt and no idealism can change that.
911 etc.. well boys you killed ours and now it's time to either lay down your weapons and your Dupont suits or face the music.
Step out from behind the women and children and fight the war on the field of honor. Let me know when the day and date is because I will be there.
If Allah, Buddah, Xenon, or whatever premeir you have, has convinced you that they will be behind you then put up or shut up and fight the fight against our soldiers.
Oh you want urban warfare? Cool.. call in the F16's and the A10's and just level the freakin city. Ooops.. collateral damage.. sorry about that. Better yours than mine.
Of course that's just my opinion and all.
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do. I worry about that sometimes.
But, Karnak has revealed himself for the apologist that he is when he claimed that Iran doesn't want the genocide of Israel. Make of that what you will.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Not genocide as that would be Irannian genocide too. Certainly they'd like to see Israel go away, but they won't get that wish. They just have to learn to live with Israel in the world and Israel needs to learn to live with Iran in the world. MAD might work. It worked for us and the USSR.
And no, I don't buy that the Irannians are insane and would give nukes to terrorists.
Kim Il Jung on the other hand....
Sorry, read about it, don't listen to the propaganda.
Insane?
You forget we are dealing with an ENTIRELY different mindset then our own.
These are people who believe if you die in the name of Allah fighting the infidels you will become a martyr.
Remember Iran is the country that produced the first suicide bomber who is now one of their national hero's (I forget his name at the moment)
Somehow I dont think the radical Islam is afraid of genocide. so long as it gets rid of Israel and its allies
-
There is a group of people, with resources and weapons, who firmly believe that the ultimate goal in their life is to die killing the infidels.
They do not have the same view of life and civilization as "we" do. This is not bad, it is just a reality. Unfortunately, the western civilization "Currently" is the infidel in their minds. They don't change their views, just their targets over time. You cannot threaten to kill these people, that is their reward for service. You can only honor them by the threat to kill them, or kill them outright. This is a war of attrition, since they have no interest in discussing or negotiating.
Now, as much as we would like to discuss, understand and "feel" their pain, it doesn't matter to them if we do. If we don't convert, we die. If you are ok with that, keep talking to them. If not, there is frankly only one solution.
If you don't comprehend the solution, go talk to them and ask. That will at least get people out of the way so we can stop this garbage once and for all. The feel gooders that Want a better world, although right in there desire, will get good people Killed by their demands and protests! This has been going on Long Before Christianity took root, the radical element has been a destabilizing factor for a long time. There is no way the human race can progress beyond it's current condition until this ludicrous mindset of Dying for some belief is flushed out of the world view as acceptable. I don't Care what you believe, condemn me to die if I don't believe in what you believe, and I'm going to take you out.
Bush has the right idea, root them out now, get it over with. Several Thousand Years of this tripe is just about worn out it's welcome.
-
It's about the Oil, Folks.
The source of cheap oil to fuel the western economies. That's why the west is in the Middle East. Western efforts to keep that cheap oil supply secure by being involved in that part of the world has led to many of the problems and anti-western feelings. That in turn has led to modern terrorism.
So long as we need that cheap oil, we will remain in the region, to try to keep the region "stable", and the war on terror will continue.
Were we ever to develop true alternative energy resources (which we won't, so long as there is oil to be had, as too many people have a vested interest in the oil economy that exists now), and were to leave that region to it's own devices, all the old hatreds and grudges would return...... the whole region would look like Iraq does today, but with no restraint. Every faction trying to come out on top over every other.
And the rest of the world would care as much about the middle east in flames under those conditions as they do for Darfur now. Some talk. No action.
So long as we need the oil, we are committed to the region, and we are committed to spent blood and treasure to try and keep the lid on.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You sure as hell can win the war on Terror.
It's called Total War. The other side loses when they realize how ****ed they are because they messed with us.
I bet an Nuclear ICBM doing circles above Mecca would win the war pretty ****ing quick.
100% False.
It would spawn even more terrorists and make the criminal elements even more determined. The harder you fight them the more support they get and the more they grow out of dispare, hate, positive propaganda for their "cause" and lack of goodwill among your own population.
If america were under attack, would you then cave if symbols of your own national pride, churches or whatnot were destroyed? or would you lock and load your winchesters and do whatever you can to give em some payback?
-
Good post, Karnak.
And... agree 100% with Nilsen ^
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You sure as hell can win the war on Terror.
It's called Total War. The other side loses when they realize how ****ed they are because they messed with us.
I bet an Nuclear ICBM doing circles above Mecca would win the war pretty ****ing quick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever wondered why, The U.S., with the ability to destroy the planet 20 times over, has NOT used a Nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because the court of world opinion would be against us, completely and utterly.
Any kind of genocide, or First-strike usage of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons, even by the U.S., would have dire consequenses, indeed.
We could expect the U.N. to turn against us, giving a country like China the Oppurtunity it needs to knock us off the Pedestal and become the #1 superpower on the planet. We could face an economic embargo, which we are ill-prepared to survive. That, at the least, would plunge us into another Great depression. Only this time, With Most of our manufacturing industry gone overseas already anyway, we would face breadlines full of out-of-work IT techs and medical assistants...
The terrorists' know this. They know that our responses to anything they do will be restricted, that we can't just fire up a Trident-class SSBN and start wailing away...And I'd have to say, they counted on it.
IF the current administration had set about their task correctly, confined the war to Al Queda targets, Stayed away from the things that made themselves a spectacle(Such as Dick Cheney-Halliburton, Lying about WMD, ignoring other potential threats like N.Korea, etc.) And simply going in, doing the job, and leaving, then we might have been able to claim a victory. However, It can now be said that the job was bungled. Instead of keeping the conflict in the context of justice, leaving our other adversaries in the world to take note, we've only exposed our weaknesses. They know that we can get suckered into long, protracted insurgency's with relative ease. They know our military's weaknesses such as Manpower, and incetive. They know that the American people, Even after an atrocity such as 9/11, can sway back into apathy if They believe a just cause has gone rotten.
The worst thing is, they now know, because of the changes we've made since 9/11, is that terrorism works.
They know that with passing of Bills such as the Patriot act, that they can influence the altering of our own constitution. That they could do something that might result in the suspension of something that we as americans find holy, such as the Bill of rights.
Really, right now, among the options on the table, Simply withdrawing the troops is not the best answer...But neither is it the worst.
An american withdrawal will most likely result in a Pro-Islamic regime in Iraq inside of 2-5 years. Of course, what that does for stability in the region, is redundant. What we DON'T want, is for all of the governments in the region to align themselves under one banner(Islam.) Economic embargoes of Oil would be disastrous to the U.S., As anyone who buys gas on a daily basis can tell you.We're already experiencing inflation as a result of higher energy prices, and It's something the Government can't fight very easily(Because the main problem is supply.)
To sum up, No, we can't simply "kill 'em all", This situation will be painful to resolve.
-
When they realize the cost of ****ing with this great country is so enormous, then they will not do whatever they want in their little minds. Sure, they might blow up one of our buses. But we just took out the terrorists's home mosque / church, incinerating every single family member of that terrorist. Every single friend of that terrorist is dead. Every single person who might have remotely even known that terrorist is dead. The support base for the terrorists drops to nothing.
You do realise that's what they think they are doing to the US, don't you?
From their point of view, their attacks on America are retaliation for the deaths of Muslims at the hands of US client states.
It's sad that those that most loudly condemn terrorism advocate terrorism against their enemies.
When was the last major terrorist attack that wasn't carried out by muslims??
Tamil Tigers have killed 23 people in 2 bus bombings in Sri Lanka so far this month.
The muslim terrorist believe God has told them to do these things they are doing. They don't do it for political power.
Of course they do it for political power.
Stop for a minute and look at what countries the bulk of Muslim terrorists come from. Most of them are US client states.
They do it because they think anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is sub human.
The problem with that as a theory is that they are attacking mainly the US, not far more liberal countries like Norway, France, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands etc.
They don't seem to have much argument with Japan either.
It's the US they hate, and it's the US who has been the power broker in the Middle East for decades. It's the US who has the most influence over the corrupt governments of the region.
Belive me,we drop a few "realy realy big none nukeular bombs" on the ****ers,we will see murder bombings stop real &@^#in' quick.
How often does the tactic of increased reprisals work? Did it work for the Nazis in Russia?
The simple fact is they hate the US because mostly because they live under corrupt governments that are protected by the US.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So, if Genocide is the answer, what exactly is the question?
Them or us?
'jus sayin'
Regards,
Sun
-
Have you ever wondered why, The U.S., with the ability to destroy the planet 20 times over, has NOT used a Nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because the court of world opinion would be against us, completely and utterly.
Any kind of genocide, or First-strike usage of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons, even by the U.S., would have dire consequenses, indeed.
We could expect the U.N. to turn against us, giving a country like China the Oppurtunity it needs to knock us off the Pedestal and become the #1 superpower on the planet. We could face an economic embargo, which we are ill-prepared to survive. That, at the least, would plunge us into another Great depression. Only this time, With Most of our manufacturing industry gone overseas already anyway, we would face breadlines full of out-of-work IT techs and medical assistants...
No, I haven't wondered. It's because the leaders have been ******* who won't do what is necessary to win a war. We haven't really won a war since ww2, so your argument is defunct.
The UN turning against us MEANS NOTHING. The UN is a pointless powerless organization. I don't really care what they think, or feel, or cry to their psychiatrists in their little circle jerk of self happiness.
Remember, force, and threat of force is the ultimate power in the world. Any other power at any level is a derivation of the power of force.
And Nilsen, you're wrong. Mecca is everything to these people. With the threat of it's destruction, all those non-terrorist muslims will get the terrorists under control. If not, we nuke the second holiest muslim site to get our point across.
-
I would agree with you karnak... I would also agree that the terrorists can't win either.
They can, like you say, run a country until it gets "out of hand". I firmly believe that most muslim countries are out of hand so far as human rights go but... like you, I believe that they got the government they deserve... when they export terror.. it gets a little sticky tho.
I would agree with tax cuts and freedom to arm yourself.
I don't know what would be enough to go in and fight these poeple who are willing to die in order to make the whole planet a fundamentalist muslim planet even if it means killing anyone who won't convert.
Do we have to be attacked a certain number of times? Is it enough that such people exist and run countries? Do we let these countries do whatever they want to their people?
The whole region is rotten... at this point I just figure that we pick a place and use it as a vacuum to suck in the nutjobs and kill em... to show that they at least can't win. To have one place in the whole region besides Israel that is free.
lazs
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Dude.
[..]Belive me,we drop a few "realy realy big none nukeular bombs" on the ****ers,we will see murder bombings stop real &@^#in' quick.
And that mutah #$%'er up in iran better watch his oscar,hes about to be neck deep in marines.
[..]
Let's say you would live in Iran and see this message - would you support having nukes or not?
Evil is as evil does.
Just saying. ;)
-
Nobody will read it but I'll post it here anyway. It's an illuminating interview of the senior cia guy who wasn't allowed to kill Bin Laden for 8 years.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/canada602/interview_scheuer.html
-
I disagree with karnaks position that we, the Americans, started this "war on terror".
War is merely an extention of political power by a beligerant entity capable of waging an organized conflict. In this case there have been many instances of the muslim world through it's myriad sects declaring death to America and other entities. Whether they are concerned with the existance of Isreal or the "plundering" of their oil or the "interferrance in muslim activities as the basis of it is immaterial. THEY declared the war and acted on the declaration and did so well before 9/11. The WTC was just the latest large scale single attack they have been able to manage to date.
It becomes encumbant then as the attacked party to do something. Either fold up and conceded defeat submitting ourselves to the demands of sharia "law" and conversion to their religion or do something else to maintain our own identity, country, religions, lifestyle and choices as we see fit to live them.
When faced with an implacable enemy there are 3 choices. Surrender, convince them to change their position, almost certainly by force of arms, or destroy them as a threat to our existence.
Option one is, so far, out of the question. It may change however given the seeming willingness by some members of this country including local govt.'s to embrace islam and grant priveledges to it's followers that other religions do not get in this country.
Option 3 is also out of the question as we are not likely to condone religious genocide (unlike the enemy) unless there is a massive attack by muslims to provoke it or a sudden threat to our survival is imminent.
That leaves option 2 and that seems to be the path we are taking. That also is the most politically acceptable solution as it involves a political as well as military end to the situation. Unless there is a politically acceptable solution that is embraced by the muslim world there will be no total end to the conflict, hence the implacable part of the equation.
Now you can deny, complain or simply gnash your teeth if you want but that's the situation in a nutshell. The question remaining is, what will you decide to do about it?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Sorry, not buying it. The argument completely ignores the difference between fundamental Islamic Fascism and the rest of the Middle East.
Oh, and yes, you CAN make terrorism unacceptable and ineffective. You simply NEVER negotiate, and you NEVER give in. You make the response to acts of terror so swift and so horrible that it becomes obvious to even the most hardened devotee that terror will not achieve their goal, but will instead yield only their destruction.
So your answer is to use terror to suppress terrorism. Somehow I doubt that a US reign of terror will go over well with the rest of the world … and other nations will have to protect themselves against US anti-terror terrorism.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, I haven't wondered. It's because the leaders have been ******* who won't do what is necessary to win a war. We haven't really won a war since ww2, so your argument is defunct.
The UN turning against us MEANS NOTHING. The UN is a pointless powerless organization. I don't really care what they think, or feel, or cry to their psychiatrists in their little circle jerk of self happiness.
Remember, force, and threat of force is the ultimate power in the world. Any other power at any level is a derivation of the power of force.
And Nilsen, you're wrong. Mecca is everything to these people. With the threat of it's destruction, all those non-terrorist muslims will get the terrorists under control. If not, we nuke the second holiest muslim site to get our point across.
Lasersailor, many people probably find you stupid. However, I think you just have a problem with realizing the consequences of your actions.
For instance; in this case you propose the threat of, and possibly the execution of, a nuclear strike against a Muslim religious site. What you don’t realize is that there already is a Muslim country with nuclear weapons; and all they need to do to retaliate is to send one brave guy with a rather large backpack to … Mexico. With your porous borders he will be in any US city in no time. And in the foreseeable future there will be more Muslim countries with nuclear arms.
Also your comment on the UN show a complete lack of understanding what the UN is. If the UN “turns against you”, the world “turns against you”. The UN is the mouthpiece of the world’s nations.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The harder you fight them the more support they get and the more they grow out of dispare, hate, positive propaganda for their "cause" and lack of goodwill among your own population.
Yes, it would be much easier to submit. After all the meaning of "islam" is "submission".
-
Originally posted by Suave
Nobody will read it but I'll post it here anyway. It's an illuminating interview of the senior cia guy who wasn't allowed to kill Bin Laden for 8 years.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/canada602/interview_scheuer.html
I've read that before, and I remember his O'Reilly Factor interview too:
Scheuer participated in the following exchange on the FOX News program The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to...
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since....
O'REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That's the first step.
O'REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.
-
that part was left out of the PBS interview, i wonder why.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Lasersailor, many people probably find you stupid. However, I think you just have a problem with realizing the consequences of your actions.
For instance; in this case you propose the threat of, and possibly the execution of, a nuclear strike against a Muslim religious site. What you don’t realize is that there already is a Muslim country with nuclear weapons; and all they need to do to retaliate is to send one brave guy with a rather large backpack to … Mexico. With your porous borders he will be in any US city in no time. And in the foreseeable future there will be more Muslim countries with nuclear arms.
Also your comment on the UN show a complete lack of understanding what the UN is. If the UN “turns against you”, the world “turns against you”. The UN is the mouthpiece of the world’s nations.
I don't care if people think I'm stupid. They know I'm right.
And as to Pakistan with nukes? I'd say let India go ape**** on them. I know they would love it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Sure, they might blow up one of our buses. But we just took out the terrorists's home mosque / church, incinerating every single family member of that terrorist. Every single friend of that terrorist is dead. Every single person who might have remotely even known that terrorist is dead. The support base for the terrorists drops to nothing.
Bombing relatives of combatants is sure to work. It sure made the British surrender in WW2 when London was bombed. Didn't it?
-
Originally posted by Engine
Bombing relatives of combatants is sure to work. It sure made the British surrender in WW2 when London was bombed. Didn't it?
But that's different, the British were caucasian and Christian, as a rule. The prevailing opinions seems to be that the folks Laser and others are advocating the genocide of are barely human.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
But that's different, the British were caucasian and Christian, as a rule. The prevailing opinions seems to be that the folks Laser and others are advocating the genocide of are barely human.
Do you think Laser's opinon would be any different if it were the British practicing global terrorism? I don't think it would make any difference to him or many other people who believe in trying to win this war. If you're going to debate his ideas that's one thing. If all you're trying to do with this statement is to label him a racist. That might win you a few brownie points with the I hate conservatives crowd. However it has little to do with presenting a good arguement. It's a cheap tactic period.
-
Originally posted by Engine
Bombing relatives of combatants is sure to work. It sure made the British surrender in WW2 when London was bombed. Didn't it?
You clearly forget the firebombing and leveling of German Cities, as well as the firebombing and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japanese cities.
-
The fact is that he's advocating genocide. Whether or not his motivations are racial or not really makes little difference compared to the fact that Laser & compatriots are _advocating genocide_. That's the stumbling point.
I would like to hear a response to the London blitz comparison, though...
EDIT: Oops, and there it is. So the fact that his example of nuclear strike is related to a war against a government instead of a fight against decentralized groups with religious motivation is beside the point, I suppose.
-
Genocide is the killing of a people because of who they are.
I advocate violent retribution for their actions. I really don't care who they are.
-
Retribution against who? The people at Mecca and in mosques, who may or may not have anything to do with any acts of terrorism? But they're valid targets because many terrorists share the same religion, is that right?
Rethink.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The fact is that he's advocating genocide. Whether or not his motivations are racial or not really makes little difference compared to the fact that Laser & compatriots are _advocating genocide_. That's the stumbling point.
I would like to hear a response to the London blitz comparison, though...
EDIT: Oops, and there it is. So the fact that his example of nuclear strike is related to a war against a government instead of a fight against decentralized groups with religious motivation is beside the point, I suppose.
The motivation makes little difference. It's the actions that do the damage.
Not all Germans were Nazi's, and not all Japanese were of the bastardized Bushido mindset. In fact many lived in fear of the very regimes that carried out the war. Those same Nazis and Japanese military warlords were going to keep fighting and keep killing the innocent until they had final victory, or the free world did.
Luckily the free world had the will to win then. Now I'm not so sure.
-
I'm not sure that a Triumph of the Will is the best solution here.
-
How amusing. How quickly people forget.
The LAST time we had people who were trying to take control of an entire region, by force, and commit genocide in the process, we had a nasty little
event the history books refer to as World War II. In order to end the war, and restore peace and some sort of reasonable order, it became necessary to completely destroy two of the main combatants, including a large portion of their civilian population.
However, these days, when you have the same sort of thing in the making, no one has the stomach, or the testicles, to do the same thing.
By the way, the idea that Bin Laden and his ilk will be satisfied if the West leaves the area is amazingly naive and stupid. Why do you think they want the West out? So they can take control. What ever gave you the idea that once they have control, they'll stop there?
Have any of you geniuses ever considered the fact that these terrorists want POWER? Or the fact that anyone who craves power and is willing to gain power in the manner that they are will never be satisfied with the power they have?
How about this. If they want the U.S. out, or even the West in general, then why the Hell are they killing other Muslims of different sects? I mean, Hell, if that makes sense, why did the U.S. go to Europe or the Pacific? We could have just started killing the Canadians. It makes about as much sense for the U.S. to have responded to Pearl Harbor by killing Canadians as it does for the Sh*ites to kill Sunnis to get the West to leave.
And by the way, if your position is that the events of 11 September 2001 were brought on simply because the West is in the Middle East, and the West is not wanted there BY SOME, and that the West should leave in response, then get ready for some group of whackos to kill a few thousand every time they have some sort of demand, and you can acquiesce to those demands as well. Se where that gets you.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You sure as hell can win the war on Terror.
It's called Total War. The other side loses when they realize how ****ed they are because they messed with us.
I bet an Nuclear ICBM doing circles above Mecca would win the war pretty ****ing quick.
This is one of the most ignorant things I've read on these forums. Bravo, lasersailor, bravo.
-
yeah...such an innocent bystander, it's just happenstance that today's terrorists were yesterday's employees.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm not sure that a Triumph of the Will is the best solution here.
There's going to be a Triumph of the Will when this war ends. I really believe this Choirboy.
One way or the other. This isn't a war that's going to end by appeasement, a cease fire, or a Camp David Accord. I believe as Holden that even if we pulled completely out of the M.E. this thing won't end. All we'd do is give them reason to believe that more attacks would bring more success.
In the mean time we have Soldiers and Marines fighting, dieing, and coming home missing limbs, or worse, because we don't have the will to win. The will of the enemy isn't breaking, the will of our service people isn't breaking. The will that's breaking is the very people who they are out there fighting for.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
How amusing. How quickly people forget.
The LAST time we had people who were trying to take control of an entire region, by force, and commit genocide in the process, we had a nasty little
event the history books refer to as World War II. In order to end the war, and restore peace and some sort of reasonable order, it became necessary to completely destroy two of the main combatants, including a large portion of their civilian population.
"Last Time"? Where have YOU been? The phrases "never again" or "not on our watch" haven't meant anything since 1945. Yugoslavia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Darfur, Uganda, Ethiopia, Burundi, Angola, China, Indonesia, Tibet, Cambodia,..... genocide is the national sport in some parts of the world.
If you want the body count: http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/genpolmmchart.htm (http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/genpolmmchart.htm)
By the way, the idea that Bin Laden and his ilk will be satisfied if the West leaves the area is amazingly naive and stupid. Why do you think they want the West out? So they can take control. What ever gave you the idea that once they have control, they'll stop there?
Have any of you geniuses ever considered the fact that these terrorists want POWER? Or the fact that anyone who craves power and is willing to gain power in the manner that they are will never be satisfied with the power they have?
Of course they do. It's all about control and power and influence. But without the western powers in the region as the enemy, or trying to keep a lid on things, all those seeking that power and control will turn on each other just as quickly. Thousands of years of hate and grudges against their neighbors released.
Arabs don't want the Persians gaining ground in Iraq. Persians don't want the Arabs to take control over Iraq again. No-one else in the region likes, or trusts, the Kurds. You have tribe against tribe, clan against clan, ayatollah against iam, secular interests against fundamentalism, and everywhere greed in regards to control over oil, drugs, and arms sales. How far will the other groups go, if it looks like one group is gaining ground?
Will the withdraw of the western powers from the Middle East stop terrorism? No. Might dampen it a bit. But at least the cost in blood and treasure trying to keep that part of the world artificially stable will be gone, and much of that hatred in the region would be turned on each other rather than outward.
But the reality is, we need to stay in the region to protect our "national interests" read as: the economy. For Congress to talk about pulling troops out is short sighted insanity. Going in was a bad idea. How they prosecuted the war was mis-handled. Winning the war meant nothing since we've lost the peace. There are no "good " ways out of this mess any more, just less bad...... but we can't withdraw.
A couple British get taken by Iraq, and the price of oil goes up. Were the United States to pull out of Iraq, there is a good chance the whole region would erupt.... with the result being the collapse of western economies.
Americans don't want to see dead soldiers coming back to the States, but I'm betting they would hate what the results of $6 to $10 a gallon of gas would do to their world even more.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Remember Iran is the country that produced the first suicide bomber who is now one of their national hero's (I forget his name at the moment)
The VC used suicide bombers in Vietnam.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
100% False.
It would spawn even more terrorists and make the criminal elements even more determined. The harder you fight them the more support they get and the more they grow out of dispare, hate, positive propaganda for their "cause" and lack of goodwill among your own population.
If america were under attack, would you then cave if symbols of your own national pride, churches or whatnot were destroyed? or would you lock and load your winchesters and do whatever you can to give em some payback?
Yep, and another example was the debacle at Abu Gharib (sp?). That incident alone created hundreds of new insurgents.
ack-ack
-
Laser's views have been ultimately shown for what they are in this thread - empty enthusiasm.
I don't see the difference between stating that we would be right to nuke an entire Muslim country and stating the Nazis were right to liquidate entire villages due to the actions of partisans. What is the difference?
Genocide is really something we should avoid.
-
there is no war on terror. There is no religious war. Just a war for oil, power and wealth between the have and the have nots. Since my team has all the goods, I want my team to keep it that way too. Killem all.
Just kidding of course :rolleyes:
NOT :D
No, seriously :aok
Haha:rofl
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Laser's views have been ultimately shown for what they are in this thread - empty enthusiasm.
I don't see the difference between stating that we would be right to nuke an entire Muslim country and stating the Nazis were right to liquidate entire villages due to the actions of partisans. What is the difference?
Winning.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Remember Iran is the country that produced the first suicide bomber who is now one of their national hero's (I forget his name at the moment)
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The VC used suicide bombers in Vietnam.
(http://www.mpkk.fi/attachment/ad9d29e3539815313b364464a41b98a9/b567c8c7d5ae834897082281a9723f4a/juttu_4_1_iso.jpg)
And then of course there is this guy:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Rodger_Young.jpg)
Not a suicide-bomber per se, but more of a suicide-hand-grenadier. A US national hero too.
Lolz at the caption:
(http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/kamikaze.jpg)
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Winning.
As proven by your opinions and the opinions of many other Americans and the actions of your government, the terrorists have won … won big.
-
You will never win our version of the "war on terror" overseas, because as much as we like to posture and chest thump we are dealing with other sovereign countries.
We will not be allowed to stomp around wherever we want using any tactic we deem necessary to identify and apprehend all of our enemies, the citizens of those other nations will not allow what we now accept in the U.S.
As for dropping a nuke here, dropping one there to force our will is kind of like killing a guy by holding his head next your right ear while firing a gun thru your left, we as a country would be devastated economically by the rest of the world first and then probably militarily shortly after.
Now our internal fight is another matter, I still think we can defeat the terrorists here, I see more and more resistance to the "Patriot Act fanboys", all is not lost.
shamus
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
It's about the Oil, Folks.
The source of cheap oil to fuel the western economies. That's why the west is in the Middle East. Western efforts to keep that cheap oil supply secure by being involved in that part of the world has led to many of the problems and anti-western feelings. That in turn has led to modern terrorism.
So long as we need that cheap oil, we will remain in the region, to try to keep the region "stable", and the war on terror will continue.
Were we ever to develop true alternative energy resources (which we won't, so long as there is oil to be had, as too many people have a vested interest in the oil economy that exists now), and were to leave that region to it's own devices, all the old hatreds and grudges would return...... the whole region would look like Iraq does today, but with no restraint. Every faction trying to come out on top over every other.
And the rest of the world would care as much about the middle east in flames under those conditions as they do for Darfur now. Some talk. No action.
So long as we need the oil, we are committed to the region, and we are committed to spent blood and treasure to try and keep the lid on.
Pretty much perfect Ted.