I've heard mention infinite times that this or that action by the Bush administration will "whip the terrorist into a frenzy" so to speak. Now I've been wondering... is that necessarily a bad thing? You can't shoot a mole in a hole, but a little bait may give you a target. Though it may cost lives, surely to do it now is better than later, since while they may kill people now, they won't be around to poison minds into who knows what sort of horrific bullshit later. So I think it's really best to do a moderate amount to piss off the would be terrorists such that they come out to play. A somewhat grim and cold addition to this is that it's even better if you can draw them out somewhere besides the US, which is Bush's mandate by the nature of his position, which is exactly what he's accomplishing. Really to me - from a strategic perspective, it's freakin beautiful. I mean, the strategy here (disregarding the ability to rebuild the government) from the perspective of gaining an advantage in the "war on terror" seems pretty damned good to me. The stated goal is to take down states who harbor terrorists.... Iraq is the perfect place to start for a number of strategic/historical reasons. - we already had a grudge against them, making them the perfect scapegoat - prideful, horrific dictator so you get teh humanitarian thing for freeing the people. - iraq is basically terrorist central at least geographically. basically the missouri or terror nation if you konw what I mean, bordering/near all the countries who need to be scared of us. (they need to be scared so they take the damn assertion 'you will not allow terrorists to play in your country' seriously). this allows us to set up camp right where we need to, as we'll likely have to have a military presence for years to come... so we get the bonus of being able to run intelligence operations/recon/attacks on cells from close in the region. seems like a sound strategy to me... but I don't have the information that the fellas in washington are privy to either. hrmph. Thoughts?
Chewing gum? I present for counterpoint the idea that shooting the mole isn't the only option. You can poison the mole, but that runs environmental risk. You can, apparently--I've never tried it--put chewing gum in a mole or gopher hole and that will do the job, but there is the risk that they won't take the bait. Nobody around here will let me drown them. Judging by what happens when it rains--not bad flooding by any means, but there's a pump under the house--I suppose there's wisdom in not putting a huge amount of water under my yard. As to the rest, I'll give deeper consideration and get back to it.
do you have any idea how many innocents have been killed by our taxes on this 'war on terror'? do you have a clue how much terror WE have wrought? obviously not. we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts.. to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before. this entire effort has set us back so far i can't imagine how long it will take planet earths people to recover. establishing democracy with the club has NEVER worked and will never work. it sounds like you only read american press.. keep yer head in the sand.. it feels better. er, ignorance is bliss.. enjoy i suspect the blowback may very well destroy america. and to top it off .. i'm with the pope on this one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
/do you have any idea how many innocents have been killed by our taxes on this 'war on terror'? Yes. Do you have any idea how many US innocent citizens would have been killed if we hadn't indulged in a "war on terror"? Up till now? 50 years from now? I don't, but my guess is significantly fewer than the innocents who have died in the war up until now. /do you have a clue how much terror WE have wrought? obviously not. Terror is in the eye of the beholder, that's for sure. Yes, I have an idea of it. /we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts.. I'm sorry but that is simply naive. Since when has killing innocence stopped international business/politics? HA. Unfortunately, there are casualities in any endeavor. I believe it imperative to try to minmize them. I further believe that is the intent of current US president, of course with respect to his mandate to promote US interests. /to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before. that's a mixed bag brother. try to validate that statement without presumption. I don't think you can. I'd say it's almost as valid to say that if they became a terrorist (from the US perspective) based on current history, then they were really already terrorists.. and it's better to draw them out and get rid of them before it gets worse. that is merely a perspective though, and I do see others that are valid. this is just the one that comes from me. it's somewhat of a gamble either way. /this entire effort has set us back so far i can't imagine how long it will take planet earths people to recover. that's simply conjecture. /establishing democracy with the club has NEVER worked and will never work. more conjecture. you cannot confirm you are right or wrong, though I agree it will be tough going and success will likely be elusive. i'm not sure /it sounds like you only read american press.. keep yer head in the sand.. it feels better. er, ignorance is bliss.. enjoy i'd prefer to keep this civil. please do not repeat this type of insult. if you were paying attention you'd realize that the goddamn american press has painted this exactly as YOU have painted it. so it sounds to me like you're talking out your ass. /i suspect the blowback may very well destroy america. it's possible. /and to top it off .. i'm with the pope on this one ; if that makes you feel better.
Re: Chewing gum? /I present for counterpoint the idea that shooting the mole isn't the only option. You can poison the mole, but that runs environmental risk. You can, apparently--I've never tried it--put chewing gum in a mole or gopher hole and that will do the job, but there is the risk that they won't take the bait. Nobody around here will let me drown them. Judging by what happens when it rains--not bad flooding by any means, but there's a pump under the house--I suppose there's wisdom in not putting a huge amount of water under my yard. Your point is well taken, but you still gotta get rid of the damn moles. You have to take a course of action. It was chosen. It does have a significant number of risks, but overall I think it actually minimizes truly new risks by forcing the hand of those that already exist. Of course I'm not sure, but so far it's seemed pretty convincing to me and fully seems like a reasonable course of action, even it if is illegal or doesn't turn out to win the contest. The idea being that if we're gonna lose, we're gonna lose. Let's play this thing out while we think we have the advantage. All in all, that's about all one really has to go on. Again, from the perspective of US interests, it seems like a very wise move to me. *shrug* I am frequently wrong and often misspeak though so you know. /As to the rest, I'll give deeper consideration and get back to it. I'll look forward to your analysis.
///Yes. Do you have any idea how many US innocent citizens would have been killed if we hadn't indulged in a "war on terror"? Up till now? 50 years from now? I don't, but my guess is significantly fewer than the innocents who have died in the war up until now. ZERO. 9-11 was an attempted attack that was allowed to happen so that ... bla bla.. you've heard it before and I BELIEVE IT. because of the evidence cited in many places other than american journalism ///Terror is in the eye of the beholder, that's for sure. Yes, I have an idea of it. oh so, sending a 19 year old american over to accidently shoot a family to death because they didnt understand our waving motion meant stop, and because that 19 year old was shitting his pants isnt terror? there's many examples of us bombing the wrong place.. or missing our target and children and pregnant mothers getting thier limbs and bodies blown up .. oops sorry.. but wee didn't mean to terrorize YOU.. we meant to aim at yer government.. sorry your nightmares are your governments fault don't blame us! /we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts.. ///I'm sorry but that is simply naive. Since when has killing innocence stopped international business/politics? HA. Unfortunately, there are casualities in any endeavor. I believe it imperative to try to minmize them. I further believe that is the intent of current US president, of course with respect to his mandate to promote US interests. well i don't feel it has been anything close to a priority to minimize casualties.. what with a pre-emptive strike on a disarmed nation.. tell me why if they had wmd's didn't they use them? most of saddams armies were unwilling fighters.. bush and crew knew this.. counted on it.. to win. bush lied to get this war on.. how is that minimizing collateral damage? how is not negotiating minimizing? 12 years of sanctions without a single attempt at negotiating.. yes tis true clinton didn't either. but i'm no dem.. so the american government in general did not practice talking vs gun to the head at any point with iraq.. how is that minimizing casualties??? /to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before. that's a mixed bag brother. try to validate that statement without presumption. I don't think you can. I'd say it's almost as valid to say that if they became a terrorist (from the US perspective) based on current history, then they were really already terrorists.. and it's better to draw them out and get rid of them before it gets worse. that is merely a perspective though, and I do see others that are valid. this is just the one that comes from me. it's somewhat of a gamble either way. Validate?!! what the hell are you talking about.. you must have missed my point.. take one case.. pretent you live in iraq for a second and your entire family and home has been blown to little tiny bits by a misguided bomb.. what do you do then? appeal to the embassy? ok, so they turn you away calling you a dirty sand nigger looking for a handout.. as many folks have done(i've read the reports) do you then think oh amerika meant the best and did the worst ill volunteer as a policeman for them.. No you sign up with the resistance.. how many folks do you think this happend to? a lot more than you think. /this entire effort has set us back so far i can't imagine how long it will take planet earths people to recover. ///that's simply conjecture. yea, well, we'll see. /establishing democracy with the club has NEVER worked and will never work. ///more conjecture. you cannot confirm you are right or wrong, though I agree it will be tough going and success will likely be elusive. i'm not sure HA!, read yer history again. democracy by the club has NEVER worked. /it sounds like you only read american press.. keep yer head in the sand.. it feels better. er, ignorance is bliss.. enjoy ///i'd prefer to keep this civil. please do not repeat this type of insult. if you were paying attention you'd realize that the goddamn american press has painted this exactly as YOU have painted it. so it sounds to me like you're talking out your ass. Lol
HA!, read yer history again. democracy by the club has NEVER worked. Obviously some ppl never learn about the disaster of the British experiment with "democracy" in Iraq in the 20's and 30's... that's why they needed a dictatorial monarch to rule. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well let some wallow and swim in their own ignorance.
I hate to even go here but.... Sadly, I think it might take a massive terrorist attack of the scale of 9/11 on European soil to get the point made across the big pond. The U.S. had a policy of containment prior to 9/11 and it failed miserably. Post 9/11 there was one option, and only one option: Hunt down the terrorists and eradicate them. I don't care who was the POTUS after 9/11, the course of action was clear. We had warning after warning that something on the scale of 9/11 was imminent and we ignored it. The Khobar Towers bombing, the Cole, Kenya and Tanzania, WTC '93, none of these seemed to rivet the attention of the U.S. It took 9/11 to get our full attention that we are at war, and the enemy has no boundaries when it comes to targets. Bottom line: Containment failed. There can be no bargaining with this enemy. So do we sit back and wait for them to make the next move, or do we hunt them down and kill them before they kill us? It's absurd to think that if a dove like Kucinich were elected to the White House that suddenly Islamic Fundamentalists would suddenly have a sea-change in their attitudes toward the U.S. and the West in general.
If I understand the premise of this thread correctly, it is that provoking terrorist attacks will assist in identifying, locating and eliminating terrorists; further that "it's freakin beautiful" to have the conflict occur in someone else's country. This is a popular and highly dangerous misconception. "The stated goal is to take down states who harbor terrorists" The prime motivator behind the growth of murderous organizations like Al-Qaeda is American military intervention in the mideast. As has been plain in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, extreme military superiority in such situations is counterproductive in combatting aggression that is not coordinated from within a political state apparatus. The political vacuum in the wake of the "take-down" provides the ideal breeding ground for terrorism and unconventional resistance. "Taking down states who harbor terrorists" has already been clearly shown (but rarely acknowledged in the US) to increase the occurance of terrorism, especially when dismantling countries containing powerful centifugal forces of tribalism and competing ethnicities. Afghanistan and Iraq are now more conducive places for the recruitment and organization of terrorists than before the emotions of 9/11 were channeled into war. If in "Taking down states who harbor terrorists" we have set an international precedent, providing cover for any nation to launch unprovoked invasions on such pretext, international stability has been seriously weakened. There is some comfort in the international isolation that has greeted this doctrine. "iraq is basically terrorist central at least geographically. basically the missouri [of] terror nation if you [know] what I mean, bordering/near all the countries who need to be scared of us." In the Mideast, American forcefulness has always incited defiance and not aquiescence. It is bigotry to assert however obliquely that the only thing that will teach a grouping of people respect is force. Wesmorris is here wholeheartedly ascribing to the Saddam Hussein school of politics: Respect through fear. But because the US is a foreign power, our resemblance to bullies will be far more intolerable to the Arab world than have been indigenous tyrants. Before 9/11, Al-Qaeda clearly communicated that the continued garrisoning of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the end of the 1st gulf war was unacceptable to them. Al-Qaeda clearly communicated that American manipulation and propping-up of mideastern regimes was unacceptable to them. Al-Qaeda clearly communicated that Saddam Hussein's regime was the enemy of Al-Qaeda. Americans were not listening. Neither did Americans understand that Al-Qaeda is not an isolated phenomena. The large view of modern mideastern history shows the intractibility of stabilization in that region through foreign military intervention. In Iraq, Ottoman and British rule there are not distant memories. In the US, these histories are hardly familiar, and if you fit the American majority, here's a very short version for you: The foreigners had to pick up their superior firepower and leave. The Bush Administration is leading the United States into a period of protracted cultural conflict, that will be extremely disruptive, and will include a greater frequency and scale of desperate reprisals including terrorism. Compare the histories of other assymetrical modern war- Spend some time thinking from the perspective of an Arab resident of the Mideast- You'll see.
My solution to terrorism. INTERNATIONALISM! Iraq did no one any favours. We have to fight together, now the question is against who? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
wesmorris This coming from a man who can't even grasp the basics of international politics. I've told you before, this is not your place. And to think how pathetic one can be, in light of more relevant, and germane posts. He chooses mine... are we gay? Me thinks so, you've joined the elite group of the nico homosexual voyeur fan club, carnuth, 15of19, and now you. Hurrah! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have to fight together, now the question is against who? " We can fight together, and do it far more effectively than the reckless reactionism we are witnessing in the behavior of the US. Here are reactive/proactive alternatives that work: React to each terrorist act with standard police investigation and apprehension of perpetrators. Cooperate internationally with every nation in arresting and prosecuting terrorists. Every nation is equally vulnerable: Those who react with a police-state internally and foreign aggression externally are targeted the most. Proactively, international cooperation in combatting misery and state repression anywhere it is occuring destroys terrorist recruitment.
Re: My solution to terrorism. It sounds good, but I don't think you really alleviate theproblem as it I think it is cultural. Changing the name of a country doesn't necessarily affect their culture, so you don't get at the problem really at all in the near term. Further, I think we are inevitably heading towards it.... but there's a ways to go. I think certain cultures are mutually exclusive and couldn't really exist under one government without changing what they are, but again, that aint easy. Culture is ingrained in people to their core and passed from generation to generation. That's a tough nut to crack. Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe. So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony? aint that a bitch.
Re: wesmorris you ignore the point to debate the man eh boy? Some gaul telling me what to do little one. I'll tread where I please child. I'd rather not flame you kid, because it's not productive. I'd rather not ignore you, because I think it's silly to ignore people. I would ask that you be civil, but I doubt someone so shallow could comprehend what that entails. You don't realize it child, but I understand much more than you. I don't have the encyclopedia of international political data memorized, but I have a depth - which you lack completely. You should learn from me child. If you foster a positive relationship, you mind find we could learn from each other. Let me know if you can handle it. I certainly expect that you cannot. nico, i'm an adult. i'm a father. i'm a man. i'm a contributing member of society and i'm significantly smarter than you in some ways. show me the respect i deserve child, and you'll find you get respect. otherwise we have nothign to say to one another.
"I think certain cultures are mutually exclusive" Please elaborate. What you are expressing is coming through as nothing more than bigotry and ignorance- If you are comfortable as a bigot and ignoramus, then there's no need to reply. "Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe." If the goal of the "War on Terror" is truly to avoid catastrophe, your observation is nonsense. "So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony? " No. You have another think coming.
NAILHEAD Nice post Wes. It's sad to see a bright young mind like nico so corrupted by inferiority complexes and insecurity. Thankfully I was forewarned about his potential for irrational histrionics by the poster that turned me on to this site, but even so, I find it sad to see him constantly screaming and yelling through his keyboard at people. I have been a long time poster on another political forum for years and one of the most valuable lessons I have learned is that no matter how much I think I know about a topic, someone will a lot more life experience than me can often shed insights that might not have occured to me. I too am a man. I don't have to go to a message board for validation. I graduated cum laude in four years from a good university, I quickly worked my way into a project manager position at the first post-college job I took, and I started my own company at 26 years old. But frankly, I didn't know shit about the world at that point. This forum has a lot of smart, thoughtful people on it, and I have learned a bit from some of them. Let's hope that the kid doesn't blow a gasket before he learns that sometimes there is just no substitute for age.
oh no, citing yer family history doesnt help me respect you.. you don't want to hear about mine.. though maybe it would make a difference to you if i told you i was a combat veteran.. i won't go into it, get off it. calling people names doesnt help anything. if you don't like it from others don't do it yerself.. i might use the word ignorant because that implies you are missing information. other than that i deleted several references to lower species from my post before i sent it.. please try to do the same Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i will continue to stand on the concept of peace through peace. peace through bludgeoning is unjust period.. i really don't understand how anyone can argue any different.
/Please elaborate. Since you asked nicely: It's pretty simple. Note zionists and people who hate zionists. Note the people in whereever that hate the people of wherever, like the serbs hating whoever, and blah blah blah. Easy enough to comprehend or would you like to accuse me of something else? /What you are expressing is coming through as nothing more than bigotry and ignorance. I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so lacking, or your image of me so disgusting. I suppose mine of you is somewhat that way so fair is fair. Hate on hating hater. /If you are comfortable as a bigot and ignoramus, then there's no need to reply. So you hide your ass behind a smile eh? Your passive aggressive bullshit is transparent. Can you be honest about it or are you gonna pretend that wasn't a pointless cheap shot? I forgot a bunch of damn children are runnign around in here - some of them older than myself. "Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe." /If the goal of the "War on Terror" is truly to avoid catastrophe, your observation is nonsense. You confuse nonsense with irony. "So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony? " /No. You have another think coming. Was that a typo or an attempt to be clever? That latter bombed. Hell maybe some people liked it. It's kidn of like saying "you better keep breathing" though, captain obvious. I always have another think coming. It probably would have been less of a waste of our time though if you had actually contemplated the observaton, rather than expending your limited resources on a flippant comment.
I would assume you're talking to me? My citation was meant for nico. He knows better. You are a newbie, so we are on a clean slate for now. I don't expect but nominal human respect automatically, and often get it, often don't. It can hardly be expected from a shallow child like our young friend/enemy nico. BTW, welcome to sciforums. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
