"And that's the way it is"

[scott_harpell]

The mentality is similar to taht of Japan and raw violence is the only thing that made them bow. They were ready to fight to the last soldier until we completely overwhelmed them. This is something that I think should hav been done in Iraq (no, no the bomb, but overpowering them). Some people have no ability to reason because of their belief systems. If these people are hell bent on killing you there is little else you can do.

 

I will concede that there are people who we can and should use diplomacy with but we have no chance at even getting at these people while the mindless propaganda is going around. Do you know that even in Italy the majority feel that George Bush paid for 9/11 to happen? Now this is a westernized country. Imagine the propaganda possible in a country like Iraq who was ruled by a tyrannic leader. Kinda helps you to understand why we are hated so much at the same time.

 

I also look at the way the media tries to only show those that hate the U.S. while I have friends in Iraq that get hi-5's from the citizens there. It is not partisan, but rather that guns make a better story than hi-5's. I see your point but I still don't think there is any practicality in it right now before we clean the area up a little bit.

[selkirk]

you forgot your

 

And I don't quite think that Japan is a particularly good example. Raw force and lots of it works when there is a fixed entity to destroy (Japan, Nazi Germany, etc.) but we don't have 1 fixed entity to deal with. This isn't even properly a guerilla war in the same terms of Vietnam, the American Revolution, numerous examples in South America), although this is closer. The closes parallel is probably the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, though on a larger scale. In my opinion it's not even a conflict we can "win" on our terms, in a military sense. There are a few fixed enemys at the top of the food chain, but killing them all won't end the conflict. It's not a war of guns, that's a system of the real conflict of mentalitys and beliefs. We definitely need to address the symptom, but treating it continually isn't enough. We kill them, they use it as recruiting fodder, and the cycle goes on ad infinitum. So how do you propose we break the cycle?

[scott_harpell]

Well we didn't even win agains Japan on our terms as we left the emperor without being tried of war crimes and still in power. You know it is sad that it is happening to Iraq but it seems that a lot of terrorists are flocking there to help the cause. If that large of a concentration was to be destroyed adn we were able to find zarqaway (sp?) and bin ladin and the like, I think it would go a long way to fixing the sitation. I would definitely place more emphasis on the capturing of the leaders who are the real reasons these attrocities are taking place.

[cj001f]

Well we didn't even win agains Japan on our terms as we left the emperor without being tried of war crimes and still in power.

 

At our choice. Macarthur refused the demands of those who wanted him tried as a war criminal because he thought Japan would be easier to rule with Hirohito around. Japan was unconditional surrender, and we rebuilt them from almost the ground up. They were at least an industrialized nation to start off with, unlike Iraq.

[scott_harpell]

Either way you look at it, it is clear that the only reason that we won with out killing every soldier they had was because of the bomb. Japan still refused after the fist bomb and even the second bomb to surrende without him being left in. Whether McArthur wanted this to happen or not, they would not have surrentdered without this clause.

[selkirk]

Certainly finding Zarqaway and Bin-Laden would go a long ways towards settling things in Iraq and the Middle East. And I think there should definitely be a huge military emphasis on them. But do you honestly thing that getting rid of those two, or even all of their lieutenants is going to be the end of their cause? So long as young men are willing to die because their homeland has been invaded there will be attacks against Israel, and against the US and Coalition in Iraq. I think getting rid of the bigwigs will definitely be a huge step towards national security against large scale threats (9/11, the Space Needle plot, etc) as their resources will then be much thinner, harder to come by, and much harder to organize larger scale attacks. There will still be low tech attacks on our troops though, and there will still be suicide bombings and other attacks of that sort. Do you really think those will go away if we capture 2 men? or even the top 2 dozen men?

[scott_harpell]

Certainly finding Zarqaway and Bin-Laden would go a long ways towards settling things in Iraq and the Middle East. And I think there should definitely be a huge military emphasis on them. But do you honestly thing that getting rid of those two, or even all of their lieutenants is going to be the end of their cause? So long as young men are willing to die because their homeland has been invaded there will be attacks against Israel, and against the US and Coalition in Iraq. I think getting rid of the bigwigs will definitely be a huge step towards national security against large scale threats (9/11, the Space Needle plot, etc) as their resources will then be much thinner, harder to come by, and much harder to organize larger scale attacks. There will still be low tech attacks on our troops though, and there will still be suicide bombings and other attacks of that sort. Do you really think those will go away if we capture 2 men? or even the top 2 dozen men?

 

Well I am all for reducing campaigns where 3,000 innocent civilians are murdered. I think another large portion is the taking out of the religious clerics who have the other, more moderate, muslim clerics murdered because they don't support the bastardization of the concept of jihad. Again, israel did this to a man who was in a wheelchair and everyone lambasted them for it. Wheelchair or not, he was still responsible for many deaths.

 

Besides these things, I feel that doing nothing is a far worse strategy. If not for military intervention, what do the rest of you think we should do? Have the CIA build more bin Ladens? I think we are doing the right thing in confronting this with our men and with our money. I thought that creating bin Laden was cowardice and underhanded. We are paying for it, but we will right the wrong.

[slothrop]

Scott, can you name a single guerilla war in which the more powerful invader prevailed without resorting to genocide? History is full of examples where the vastly more powerful invader was brought to its knees or forced to withdraw by the occupied people. I don't think "shock and awe" is going to win the war in Iraq or overwhelm the Islamist insurgency around the world. Our enemies deal in violence, not in diplomacy, but they also feed off of violence. Airstrikes and raids by the US forces only seem to incite them further and serve as motivational tools for their recruitment efforts.

[selkirk]

More CIA sponsored radicals is definitely not the way to go. And I would agree with taking out the radical clerics, but it would be 100 times better if they were taken out by Iraqi and Palestinian forces than US or Israeli. Don't just knock them off, but have their own people put them on trial. If we take them out, it solves the problem only temporarily, we need to find a long term solution.

[cj001f]

I think we are doing the right thing in confronting this with our men and with our money. I thought that creating bin Laden was cowardice and underhanded. We are paying for it, but we will right the wrong.

Scott-

The question isn't the president's false dichotomy of his course of action or do nothing. Doing nothing is not going to make Islamic terrorism go away - neither will creating more failed states to breed terror (Iraq! N Korea!) - engagement and improvement in the 3rd world is the way forward.

[scott_harpell]

I think we are doing the right thing in confronting this with our men and with our money. I thought that creating bin Laden was cowardice and underhanded. We are paying for it, but we will right the wrong.

Scott-

The question isn't the president's false dichotomy of his course of action or do nothing. Doing nothing is not going to make Islamic terrorism go away - neither will creating more failed states to breed terror (Iraq! N Korea!) - engagement and improvement in the 3rd world is the way forward.

 

So... more corn?

[cj001f]

So... more corn?

When you sign huge farm subsidy bills what else you going to do with it

[scott_harpell]

Don't just knock them off, but have their own people put them on trial. If we take them out, it solves the problem only temporarily, we need to find a long term solution.

 

How would the palestinians put Arafat on trial. Please. How would the Iraqui's put Saddam on trial without our help? They can't because these 3rd world countries are fucked up. They are not fucked up because of us, they are fucked up because their leaders are tyrranical billionaires that have 38 palaces and eat caviar and have 400 wives while the rest of their country starves. You say that we should help out the 3rd world? Well I say that we just did. By catching that ass hole and letting the Iraquis try him for the rape of their women, the murder of their children and the slaughter of their brothers.

[scott_harpell]

So... more corn?

When you sign huge farm subsidy bills what else you going to do with it

 

Well what are you going to do? This vague... help the 3rd world shit is liberal ass-cover. Suggest something to do to fix it and then do it. That is why people like GWB. Even though he may be the greatest fuck-up in the world, he at least believes in something and does something about it. Far better than just tyring to rationalize the situation crying about 3rd world famine. If you think that is the answer, what are you prepared to do about it? I believe that there would be little 3rd world famine if it weren't for the leaders of 3rd world countries. You canno tell me that there is not enough money to feed their country when Saddam has 38 palaces. Please. You blame the H2 drivers in the U.S. for the hunger of a people who's leader is a billionaire?!?!? please!!

[selkirk]

Exactly, that's one thing were doing right.... Lots of room for improvement still though

[scott_harpell]

Exactly, that's one thing were doing right.... Lots of room for improvement still though

 

I would say it is certainly better than nothing; a position seemingly taken by the rest on this board.

 

You can have your Free Tibet! stickers on your subaru and feel good that you are sving the planet, but unless you are willing to face the facts that some problems cannot be remedied with subarus and bumper stickers and must be cured with rifles and tanks you will never be a part of the solution. How do you want to free Tibet? With a bumper sticker?

Edited October 26, 2004 by scott_harpell

[selkirk]

Agreed..... freakin liberal wanks

 

It's good to see all the conservatives haven't been chased off or banned.

[cj001f]

help the 3rd world shit is liberal ass-cover. Suggest something to do to fix it and then do it. That is why people like GWB. Even though he may be the greatest fuck-up in the world, he at least believes in something and does something about it.

I didn't realize that doing "something" was better than doing the right thing. Bombing nations, losing 350 tons of Explosives (that's 700,000 Pan AM 103's), perpetuating havens for terrorism with a permawar (Afghanistan) are making the problem worse, not better.

[cj001f]

Agreed..... freakin liberal wanks

 

It's good to see all the conservatives haven't been chased off or banned.

 

Funny, this thread seems like conservative wanking

[scott_harpell]

You are dodging. Should we have done nothing? I will ignore the fact that there were 10,000 instalations which had expolsives and just say that we can take responsibility to keep this on track. You have still not stated what you think we should have done. For people who always have the answers and can critique the failures of others, you sure seem to be sorely lacking.

[scott_harpell]

Agreed..... freakin liberal wanks

 

It's good to see all the conservatives haven't been chased off or banned.

 

Funny, this thread seems like conservative wanking

 

Well cough up an answer then. What would you have done. Or more importantly as November is almost here; What would John Kerry have done?

[scott_harpell]

2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn?t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It?s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN?s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

 

Nevermind then...

[selkirk]

lol, someone took the bait....

And your right CJ, doint the right thing is always best. But doing nothing at all while you debate what's right for too long can be even worse. Have to find the right compromise, the best action at the best time. I still don't think we should have gone into Iraq, but were there. Now that were there we need to deal with the issues at hand, not twiddle our thumbs and ponder what's right forever. I personally think a lot of mistakes have been made in how we've pursued exiting Iraq since we arrived. But mistakes and all if we had just sat on our hands I think things would be getting worse even faster.

 

sooo... now that were there what do you suggest we do?

Scott's saying persue military action against any and all suspected terrorists. Cut off the head with overhwhelming firepower... I may not think it's right, but it's a better plan than doing nothing.

so what's your plan?

[cj001f]

You are dodging. Should we have done nothing? I will ignore the fact that there were 10,000 instalations which had expolsives and just say that we can take responsibility to keep this on track. You have still not stated what you think we should have done. For people who always have the answers and can critique the failures of others, you sure seem to be sorely lacking.

 

For starters, instead of discouraging foreign citizens from visiting & studying in the US, encourage them to visit and enjoy our culture.

 

Pressure Saudi Arabia (the largest backer of terrorism) for reforms

 

Pressure Pakistan for reforms

 

Instead of moving on to Iraq (small beans in the terrorist busy), finish up our work in Afghanistan

 

FIND BIN LADEN!

[Jim]

You are dodging. Should we have done nothing? I will ignore the fact that there were 10,000 instalations which had expolsives and just say that we can take responsibility to keep this on track. You have still not stated what you think we should have done. For people who always have the answers and can critique the failures of others, you sure seem to be sorely lacking.

 

Saddam was under the thumb of the world. We knew what he had and where it was - at least the UN and the IAEC did. Keep the pressure on, work with adjoining countries, and squeeze the juice outta him in the long run.

 

So what was our brillant alternative? INVADE. Oh yea, forgot to monitor the borders, guard the stockpiles of explosives and weapons, disband the army (WTF??), and don't send in enough troops. Absolutely brilliant. Now Iraq is an insurgent and terrorist magnet, the common people want us out because with Saddam they at least had electricty and law and order. Polls now show that if Saddam was running for election he would win.

 

So we've pissed off our allies, made bold new steps as the super-imperialist, put the country into disarray, and diverted our attention from the real threats. Got any more stunning ideas?