Hype: LOL. You pathetic soul. I hope someday you catch a clue. I seriously doubt it will happen. Undecided: /Just wondering Wes, would you support a bombing campaign against Britain, if there was undeniable evidence that the UK harbors terrorists (which it does?) I doubt it, but it would depend on the strategic advantage of doing so. Don't you think it would be exactly stupid to say "yes" or "no" without serious qualification? /What if there was info that in Canada that terrorists would be gathering at a remote location in the north, and Canadian officials couldn't get there in time? That is an unclear scenario. I'm not sure what you're asking. I'll summarize by saying that a government, as any individual, is responsible to maximize their percieved profit function (welfare of people, protection of economy, blah blah: pretty much the same thing as an individual except taken to the group level, which complicates the hell out of it and nullifies typical ethics) and all decisions made within a governmental structure should be made with this (and the massive inter-relationships attached to said decisions) in mind. /Would you support a aerial attack on Canada? What for? Did they ask us to? Is it government sanctioned/sponsored? What are the estimated outcomes based on choices? If I bomb that might take some down now, what is the long term? What's the psychology of these guys? Is it religious? What to they purport to want? Are hidden goals? You haven't set up enough information to even start to estimate outcomes. Sadly, you probably couldn't. The US president for instance, is stuck in exactly this scenario, too little information (as in, I can't say for sure what the result will be) but is still charged with the reponsibility as prescribed above about the profit function. It is my opinion that given the current scenario, he is doing an excellent job (and i voted for Gore you know, though I'm really really glad now that he lost). /Would you support a intensive bombing campaign in Michigan where the largest Arab population lives in the US? I think you can guess my answer. Can you?
I doubt it, but it would depend on the strategic advantage of doing so. Don't you think it would be exactly stupid to say "yes" or "no" without serious qualification? Well no not really, because such scenarios have already played themselves out. For instance the Israeli attack on Syria, there is international precedents for such things. International precedents are stupid yes, but one cannot really just deny the question because it lacks coherent logic. Politics sadly rarely includes logic. That is an unclear scenario. I'm not sure what you're asking. Yes, sorry bout that. Let's say a known Al Qaeda cell is meeting in a cabin in the Canadian north (not too north), and the Canadians are known through Intel. That they cannot reach there in time. Intel. has said it was only this night they would be meeting altogether in one spot. Would you support an attack on that cabin, in disregard for international law? What for? Did they ask us to? Is it government sanctioned/sponsored? What are the estimated outcomes based on choices? If I bomb that might take some down now, what is the long term? What's the psychology of these guys? Is it religious? What to they purport to want? Look above... It is my opinion that given the current scenario, he is doing an excellent job (and i voted for Gore you know, though I'm really really glad now that he lost). About this... how is Bush doing a excellent job? Seriously think about Bush, he has the world's largest and most respected military, and economy. He gained enormous political capital post 9/11. But squandered it all in an illegal war in Iraq, that has produces no pragmatic effects. The general consensus on the Arab street is even more anti-American then pre-9/11. Terrorism has not decreased; Al Qaeda has attacked British targets in Turkey, the US embassy in Pakistan, Bali nightclub. Iraqi insurgents aren't throwing flowers to the Americans you know. The normal Iraqi hates Saddam, but as does the US. Sure it may be perceived that Bush has accomplished his goals, but that's it. It's just perceived, it’s not real. Terrorism is not something one can measure; it is not something that one can attack. They aren't states, they don't have armies, they don't have ministries, and they don't have anything that a modern military is designed to attack. Iraq for instance had no connection to Al Qaeda, yet there was an invasion? How about the lies spread about the meeting btwn Abbas, and an Iraqi spy in Prague? War is not the answer, at least not wars like Iraq, or Afghanistan. You have to understand their frame of mind; they are not like me or you. They are ppl who want death, for their cause. You kill them, your doing them and their cause a favor. Martyrdom is very chic in that part of the world. Why are we giving them what they want? If death wasn't glorified then why suicide bombings? Imagine if you kill Osama, it will not decrease terrorism, many experts affirm that you kill one, you get three more. What has to be done is to combat this as quietly as possible, frankly to tell you the truth we as the public shouldn't know who got captured etc. Publicity is not good news for the US' efforts in the region. What Bush is doing (unwisely) is exploiting this war, for his own gain. You are evidence of this, you support him. This alone is well within your rights. But he has produces no tangible results. Proliferation worldwide has gone up, threats to the US has increased under his rule. Perception is Bush's best friend, not reality. Vote Bush if you want too, that's up to you. I applaud the fact that you are exercising your democratic right. But try looking at the reality of the situation, remember we aren't fighting a western war; this is a war with no precedent.
"this is a war with no precedent" There is plenty of precedent clearly indicating exactly where this is headed. When europe's monarchies were being taken down, along came France's "reign of Terror". Across Europe there later came bombings, assassinations, wars, until more representative and efficient governments satisfied the public enough to calm things down. Terrorist tactics were employed in resistance to nazis and soviets wherever they invaded and garrisoned armies among other ethnicities and nationalities. In more recent interventions and invasions like Palestine, Algeria, Vietnam, the scales of conflict have varied, but the outcome has not: While terrorists and popular resistance don't always win, uniformed armies cannot successfully confront them in traditional ways, and when they try anyway, they always lose, because state armies have states they must defend, while terrorists do not: In fact terrorists gain influence wherever the political voids they breed in are attacked by state-branded armed forces. I am not suggesting that terrorism is a singular, fundamental or trumping force of change in the world. Success in America's War on Terrorism will demand careful attention to the conditions history has already clearly revealed, and will demand vastly different strategy and tactics than do wars between states. There is much historic experience with terrorism, but American culture is stuck on the paradigms of state warfare, and this confusion is extremely dangerous.
hypewaders Good analysis hype, but Al Qaeda and her operations have no compare in the history of man. The "terrorist" actions you were speaking of where nationalistic in nature, and where against tyrants, or invaders. That analysis would have been excellent in an Iraq thread. But here Al Qaeda has no one base of operations. Their base of operations could literally be you're next door neighbors house. This is the effect of globalization; this is not even a war. This is what I would characterize as an action, what is a war is a action against nations, and against things you can knowingly see as targets. What this "war" depends on is human intelligence, and not many Islamic fundamentalists are going to scream to the US. Remember they only found Saddam by "interrogating" someone. Pride is very important in the region, and telling the enemy is not looked on favorably, and the thing is that you aren't the only one who would suffer your entire family would. This is a religious war, no amount of money, or firepower, or domination, will change the perceived word of God. Too many Muslims (not all), Osama is like a leader that the Muslim world lacks. Sure we may say that his version of Islam is perverted, and maybe it is. But like politics, what is real is what is perceived to be real. That is a major reason why this is unique, the Ummah could be said to be that nationalistic goal. But it's totally unrealistic and I even think that Osama knows that. Instead this "war" is one against American presence, which has propped up many tyrannical regimes. To the extremists, also secular regimes that aren't true to the teachings of Islam. Does anyone actually expect them to listen to a Judeo-Christian nation to tell them what is good for them? Example of this would be the imposed democracy on Iraq. Pride, Martyrdom, and Religion is what is driving this, and this "war on terror" is only making their case (terrorists) more compelling to the Muslim street. From Java, to Morocco Islamification is the buzz word.
Actually, regarding Saddams capture It's way too early to tell exactly which variable in the equation led to his capture. Too many differing stories are being floated about regarding the raid, the two men guarding (or protecting) him, and where he might have been held prior to the spiderhole. One thing that's just starting to come out is that the Mossad had been tracking phone calls from his wife and had just revealed their info to Washington prior to his capture. It very well may have been info gathered by the Mossad and turned over to U.S. forces that gave us the exact location of his hideout. Sadly, we will probably never know exactly what happened in this story.
15ofthe19 True, there are many variables in the capture of Saddam. But it is generally regarded that the capture wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for that man in custody. He gave them literally minutes worth of intel. That wouldn't have been possible with any amount of electronic surveillance.
wesmachiavelli: "...government, as any individual, is responsible to maximize their percieved profit function (welfare of people, protection of economy, blah blah: pretty much the same thing as an individual except taken to the group level, which complicates the hell out of it and nullifies typical ethics) and all decisions made within a governmental structure should be made with this (and the massive inter-relationships attached to said decisions) in mind." Cold realpolitik also requires consideration of what political isolation means in a global economy. Any nation consistently conducting foreign policy on the premise that it "nullifies typical ethics" winds up in a vulnerable position in relation to a surrounding world forming a negative consensus. We are experiencing multiple simultaneous revolutions, one of which, just revving up, involves the circulation of information happening with ever greater speed and penetration. This is accelerating changes in affiliations and perspectives on the global scale. As with formidable powers in the past, the political, strategic, and economic implications of negative consensus cannot be dismissed. Increasingly, from the rise of literacy to the explosion of information transfer, everyone can see increasigly into the activities of governments and form collective opinions. The unprecedented extent of globalization of the US economy makes the potential for negative consequences monumental, if the overseas foundations of our contemporary economic engine begin to significantly shift alignment. Europe and Asia know that they can do for themselves. We have critical need of being "liked" and trusted in order to maintain our world standing, and we ignore "typical ethics" very much at our own peril. Undecided: Yes, everything is globalizing, but the lessons of past terrorist vs state confrontations still apply.
Why do you ignore the rest of my post? I suppose you agree with me on that which you didn't quote or respond to? /Well no not really, because such scenarios have already played themselves out. For instance the Israeli attack on Syria, there is international precedents for such things. International precedents are stupid yes, but one cannot really just deny the question because it lacks coherent logic. Politics sadly rarely includes logic. You argue precedent and then close by saying this war has no precedent. Typo I assume? Precedent certainly is important regarding one's take on possible outcomes, however, the applicability of precedenct is wholly iffish and I don't think that Israel's attack on Syria is relevant. If you disagree, please enlighten me. /Yes, sorry bout that. Let's say a known Al Qaeda cell is meeting in a cabin in the Canadian north (not too north), and the Canadians are known through Intel. That they cannot reach there in time. Intel. has said it was only this night they would be meeting altogether in one spot. Would you support an attack on that cabin, in disregard for international law? Depends on Canada's disposition, the importance of the Al Qaeda dudes and the risk of exposing the operation. I'd rather sneak a team in, take them alive and milk them for info. I don't know if I would risk it if Canada was poopooing the idea, as their government is not our enemy nor do they sanction (as far as I know) those that the US would deem terrorists. /About this... how is Bush doing a excellent job? Mostly for standing the course regardless of utter mountains of criticism. IMO, it's demonstrative of character - a rarity from the modern day politician. I doubt you'd agree. Regardless, I'll just move on as this statement by itself is just opinion, with little substance to debate. /Seriously think about Bush, he has the world's largest and most respected military, and economy. Okay. I probably wouldn't have thought about it seriously without your prodding though, so thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LOL. /He gained enormous political capital post 9/11. "political capital"? I'm not exactly sure what that is. You mean leverage? Juice? Please clarify. /But squandered it all in an illegal war in Iraq, that has produces no pragmatic effects. Complete conjecture. Note your use of judgemental terms: "squandered", "illegal war", "no pragmatic effects". This is not an argument, merely statement of your opinion. I'm not even arguign that you're wrong, but that you have, similar to Hype, produced no argument. /The general consensus on the Arab street is even more anti-American then pre-9/11. Okay so I'm supposed to believe you're in touch with "the arab street" well enough to know the "general consensus"? Then I'm supposed to believe that if it were more anti-american, that is necessarily a bad thing. I'm not saying it's necessarily good, but you should realize that with integrated systems, conditions that produced effects are often exactly counterintuitive. /Terrorism has not decreased Show the numbers fella. What the hell, okay I buy it: Now can you show that it WON'T decrease based on current efforts? Maybe the ball is just now rolling eh? I suppose that couldn't be, as your opinion is obviously unquestionable? Sorry, I'm projecting my frustration with Hype at you, since you are indulging in similar logic. That's not fair, as it could be that you might see the error of your argument. /Al Qaeda has attacked British targets in Turkey, the US embassy in Pakistan, Bali nightclub. that is not convincing evidence that "terrorism has not decreased". /Iraqi insurgents aren't throwing flowers to the Americans you know. Okay, but uhm.. dude. Are you awake? An "insurgent" wouldn't throw flowers at Americans.... hello? Would you say "the Iraqi populous doesn't welcome american troops"? What percentage? Can you prove your polling was unbiased? (i don't even buy polls in peace time in the US, as human opinion is a dynamic thing). /The normal Iraqi hates Saddam, but as does the US. I'm not sure what you were trying to say. I'd agree that the typical Iraqi probably hates Sadaam. Of course, this is conjecture but it seems plausible to me so I won't argue. /Sure it may be perceived that Bush has accomplished his goals, but that's it. It's just perceived, it’s not real. LOL. Do you see how empty your argument is? You have yet to say one thing of real substance. You argue conjecture apparently based on ideology. IMO, that is a horrible way to try to view the world, as it is simply bullshit you tell yourself. It's just perceived? Who said so? I said "I think he's doing a good job" and "I think this is a good strategy". I don't think anything is done besides phases one and two maybe in 1001 phase plan, whose strategy seems sound to me. /Terrorism is not something one can measure; You are now twice (at least) in direct contradiction with your own statements, as you just said above that "terrorism has not decreased". How can you know that if you can't measure it? /it is not something that one can attack. That is simply wrong. If I pimp a bit to draw out unfriendlies, and they come, I'll bet at least a few of them were "would be" terrorists. Further, comprehensive intelligence and selective attacks (like stings, etc) has foiled terrorist operations in the past. I am currently of the opinion that you can get all Art of War on these people by using their hatred against them. Surely you'll not get the heads this way, but their potential soldiers get weeded out before they can be utilized by the heads for more than target practice for american troops. /They aren't states, they don't have armies, they don't have ministries, and they don't have anything that a modern military is designed to attack. Are you seriously of the opinion that I can't fathom that? Do you just assume I'm stupid? That is why drawing them out seems smart to me, and IMO, it's being done somewhat subtly ( in that it is not the stated mission in iraq, but one of the many apparent strategic advantages). /Iraq for instance had no connection to Al Qaeda, yet there was an invasion? Did you not read the opening post? Further, it is quite presumtuous of you (yet again) to assume that there is no connection. I seriously don't think that's true. I'd guess that Sadaam was allowing them to do stuff in Iraq without hassling them because they have a common enemy: US. Of course, that is just conjecture. /How about the lies spread about the meeting btwn Abbas, and an Iraqi spy in Prague? I don't know about that. /War is not the answer, at least not wars like Iraq, or Afghanistan. Okay, this is getting frustrating. You have not given a goddamn thing to support that, but you throw it out there like it's the goddamn word of god. WTF dude? WHO SAYS? Maybe war IS the damn answer eh? PROVE THAT IT ISN'T? You can't. You are apparently an ideolog. True? No? Can you see your mistakes in this argument? Am I wasting my time here? /You have to understand their frame of mind; they are not like me or you. Okay, I'm gonna let that condescension slide for now, but it's getting difficult to maintain composure. Please refrain from this in the future or this conversation will go nowhere. /They are ppl who want death, for their cause. You kill them, your doing them and their cause a favor. Then on with the show. Good riddence. /Martyrdom is very chic in that part of the world. LOL. So you're the arabic culture repository? WHAT? I mean, it's probably a little bigger than here, but martyrdom is a symptom of religious fanaticism. Are you calling them a bunch of fanatics? Wouldn't the PC patrol frown on that? /Why are we giving them what they want? Because if they are dead they don't blow stuff up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What is wrong with your brain that you can't see the obvious? /If death wasn't glorified then why suicide bombings? Oh man, because it's a very effective means of acuiring psychological leverage. Those like OBL know this, and pimp those weak enough to fall for their schpeal. Further, suicide bombings are SO high reward/cost ration for the side doing them. I mean, 19 guys jacked up the heads of the entire planet. That is damned impressive from a military standpoint. /Imagine if you kill Osama, it will not decrease terrorism, many experts affirm that you kill one, you get three more. Conjecture. It might be true I grant you. It's simply difficult to say. I bet I can find you "many experts" who have the opposite opinion based on the concurrent activities to "killing one". /What has to be done is to combat this as quietly as possible, frankly to tell you the truth we as the public shouldn't know who got captured etc. Now that's a reasonable suggestion (finally). You should expand on this and discuss it as an alternative... though I guess it's kind of moot at this point. Maybe what's gonna happen really is a fade from the current strategy maybe a few years from now (once we feel we've seriously damaged them) into something like what you're saying. /Publicity is not good news for the US' efforts in the region. That is simply unwarrented. You don't know all the details of the strategy. It may or might not be. Regardless, out of respect for freedom, the press is allowed to cover the war. That's a good thing right, even if it gets american troops killed? Damn if there are a few moral/ethical dillemas wrapped up in all that. /What Bush is doing (unwisely) is exploiting this war, for his own gain. You know, that is just bullshit brother. You're talking out your ass. Back it up. Show how it isn't wise. Show how he is exploiting it. I can see good arguments either way. Personally, I think he's just doing the best he can to do his job. I don't even like him. I just get that vibe from the scenario. /You are evidence of this, you support him. LOL. Yeah, I'm a mindless drone eh? You sure you wanna pick that fight? /This alone is well within your rights. Jeez thanks for pointing it out. /But he has produces no tangible results. So I'm just supposed to believe this based on a bunch of your conjecture? I don't buy it. I think he's produced tangible results (like taking down Iraq's government - which yes, we unfortunately enabled to begin with) and capturing their dictator (which we loosed on them). IMO, that rights a 35 year old wrong. That is tangible. Not to mention I think it's a solid first step to changing the region, though that's not necessarily true and the whole shit could backfire. Hard to say. It's risky, but great gain seems usually to come from great risk. /Proliferation worldwide has gone up, threats to the US has increased under his rule. "his rule"? LOL. Okay, so now you're marginalizing too eh? You think that helps your case? What kind of weak-minded drones are you used to debating with? /Perception is Bush's best friend, not reality. Now if you were actually intelligent, you'd realize you just described politics, not a man. Can you see that? /Vote Bush if you want too, that's up to you. I will this time. /I applaud the fact that you are exercising your democratic right. Thanks. /But try looking at the reality of the situation You don't mind if a snicker at that a bit do you? As you are living in some ideological fantasy asking that I look at the real world...? LOL. DUDE. Please put your brain in gear. /remember we aren't fighting a western war i just don't know what to say to that. too... many... smartass comments.... argh! Okay. I'll try to remember that. Thank you for your well-intentioned advice. /this is a war with no precedent. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I thought you said that it had been done before and it was a miserable failure or something? "Well no not really, because such scenarios have already played themselves out. For instance the Israeli attack on Syria, there is international precedents for such things. International precedents are stupid yes, but one cannot really just deny the question because it lacks coherent logic. Politics sadly rarely includes logic." I might suggest that you attempt not to obviously contradict yourself. I'd further suggest that you attempt to form an actual argument, rather than your own brand of idealistic dogma.
Yes, everything is globalizing, but the lessons of past terrorist vs state confrontations still apply. You could argue that, and I don't disagree. Of course former confrontations apply. But they are nothing more then a side show to the current reality. There is no constant in this modern world, terrorists change their colours almost instantly. Never before has there been a terrorist threat within the US like this. There have never been questions posed like the ones now. Not only that this is truly a e-war. The wests own machinations are now being used against her...poetic?
wesmorris I seriously don't like your tone, or condescension. Neither of which is deserved, you want objectively go to the science section. This is politics, what do you want no bias? Good luck, because you aren't going to find it here. I will gladly answer to your post if you understand the basics of politics, and common courtesy. I found that post to be repugnant to tell you the truth. I have shown nothing but respect and that is what I get? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
More on why you're dumb: You just like it when I call you names eh masochistic bitch? /Cold realpolitik Okay where did you get that term? Did you just make that up? Ack. This is not something I read somewhere it a book idiot, it's called "thinking". Can you do it? You see, it's basically econ 101 applied to well, everything. It works sweet and if you comprehend it (which in your case it is obvious that YOU DO NOT, MORON) you can begin to understand things you might not otherwise understand. Don't worry though, I don't think you're gonna start understanding anything any time soon as that requires a functional brain. /also requires consideration of what political isolation means in a global economy. OKAY IDIOT! HOW ABOUT THIS: factor that into the equation of the profit function I discussed. Did that hurt your itty bitty wittle brain? I seriously don't think you see what I mean do you? /Any nation consistently conducting foreign policy on the premise that it "nullifies typical ethics" winds up in a vulnerable position in relation to a surrounding world forming a negative consensus. That's because your'e stupid shallow little bitch ass can't see through the shit helmet you've stuck on your head. IF YOU WEREN'T brain dead fool, you'd see that "appearances" suffice for ethics in this realm. The reason that typical ethics are thrown out is because they diverge logically. Homework for hype: Figure out what I mean. Just this one little thing hype. Figure one little thing into that pea brain of yours. Understand something man. At least throw out some ideas as to what you think I might be gettin at. /We are experiencing multiple simultaneous revolutions, one of which, just revving up, involves the circulation of information happening with ever greater speed and penetration. This is accelerating changes in affiliations and perspectives on the global scale. Man your tripe is exhausting. Read this idiot. It's all conjecture and bullshit, based on a shit understanding of "realipolitickasnale" or whatever the shit you called it. Bah. Shallow moron.
Undecided: I think the threat is not as multiplied as is the awareness and reaction: The increasing vulnerability that goes with increasengly developed economies and technologies is not asserting itself gently. Grasping it will require some appreciation for the ironic. We're getting dragged out of our tidy American comfort zone. wes: "Why do you ignore the rest of my post?" OK I'll take a look. edit: (whew) I see now it wasn't for me.
Re: wesmorris LOL. Welcome to sciforums. Sorry you can't take it. You know sadly, that was my attempt at being respectful! Hehe. Eh what are you gonna do. You post a bunch of BS at my post, I'm gonna rip it up. If you are capable of showing the flaws in my reasoning please do. Otherwise, please don't whine. I wasn't trying offend you, I was merely addressing the pile of shit you put in front of me. I'm not mad, and i don't have anything against you, I simply think that you put a load of shit up there which you hadn't really thought out. Maybe you can help me then, I don't mean to offend.. though I do slightly intend to shock you into switching on your brain (which you apparently left in nuetral before posting). So please, show me what was offensive. Maybe I'm missing something due to the coldness of the medium. To me, I'm just giving you a bunch of hell. Show me why you take it serious?
Re: hypewaders I don know much about it, but werent perhaps the Hashishim like al qaeda? The way to get rid of them was cut off the head, true, but the rest of their modus operandi was somewhat simliar. However, with regards to bombing etc, what these people feed on is the percieved injustices in the situation. You bomb a house to get three of them, but also kill 5 next door civilians, thats not much us. Yo get a short term gain, but longer term lots more people dont like you. See the USA in Iraq for example. But then i agree with most of the rest of your post.
"The reason that typical ethics are thrown out is because they diverge logically. Homework for hype: Figure out what I mean. OK, let's take that apart, but I may need some help. So that I can get started on my assignment, please fill in the blank, that is if this new little sidebar has a meaningful and not obscuring intent: Ethics diverge logically from _______.
LOL. I see, you can't think because you got everyone to do your homework for you eh? It's all coming together now. Sheez hype.
Ethics diverge logically from _______. I don't know what you're asking me to examine. Please fill in the blank.
*sigh* It's "typical ethics logically diverge given (or 'when') ________________________". Does that help? or how about: Under what circumstances does the typical notion of ethics logically diverge? Something along those lines.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/terror030213_falsealarm.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Both the Afghan war and Iraq war were planned prior to 2000. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But rest assured wes trolland is willing to believe one more time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LOL. Trolling by calling someone a troll eh? Impressive. Tell me, ass, what incites your bullshit? I have no problem with you, as you have not presented a pile of shit thus far. Thus far, you have been one of the people whose opinion on this stuff I at least halfassed respect, as it has seemed that you are at least semi-logical in your perspective (well, the few bits I've seen). Instead of debating the subject matter, you drive by and call me a goddamn troll? How am I supposed to respect this Don? If you want to call me a goddamn troll, at least give a basis for it. Now I call you a pussy, based on your cowardly assed driveby. See, at least I have a basis for it. I'm sure you probably have a comment too, but failing to present it is simply uhm, well, bitch-like. OH I see, if you can't argue against it, use photoshop and call it artistic. That will make a point you don't have to defend eh? Thanks, Don HACK.
