RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror?

RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LotusSong -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 11:20:44 AM)
Napoleon's France into Russia.. Hitler's Germany into to Russia... US into Iraq.. hmmm could it be we have seen this before? In all cases..the "commander in cheif" said they would NOT give up...until the troops said WTF!? This "war" has changed faces so oftern.. first it's vengance because of the WTC..then it's liberating Iraq.. now it's a civil war.... these people know nothing but fighitng. it's what they do as far as I'm concerned. "Never try to teach a pig to sing.. it wastes your time and irritates the pig".

philosophy -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 11:29:44 AM)
""The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy.....................If we use our military options now, thousands of innocent people will be killed along with the guilty" "I clearly wasn't calling for indiscriminant slaughter ... " .................you clearly were......... " "I admit to having a pet peeve against those that take half sentences, or something out of context, in order to make a response to a point that was never made by the original poster. Certain people here on this board, do it again, and again and again. At the college I attend, they would be laughed out of class." .........does this college also teach you to say what you mean? To think through the consequences of what you suggest? Because this isn't the first time someone on these fora has shown you a logical and inevitable consequence of things you suggest and you subsequently getting huffy........

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 11:30:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn So, all we have to do is stop supporting our best allies in the region, and around the world, and these people will stop attacking us? The greatest mistake we could make as a very powerful nation, is to allow our policies to be dictated by unfriendly nations and groups. That's only going to give everyone a clear model of how to get your way with the United States. This is going to sound harsh, but please read the entire thought before you flame me. [;)] The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy. I know ... that makes me sound like a war monger, and will probably make CrappyDom call me "sick" again ... but at least hear out the point of view, before you completely thrash it. If we use our military options now, thousands of innocent people will be killed along with the guilty ... a very awful thing to be sure. Allow this to go on, and on, and on ... and ignore the simple truth that there isn't going to be a peacful solution to this, and it will escallate to the point where tens-of-millions will die, most of them innocent civilians. Is that what the peacenicks of today want ... to feel good about peace today, so that millions can die tommorow? Just for the record, "peace in our time" never happened, and even if it had, it was a poor legacy to pass on to the next generation. Woo hoo, Final Solution II has arrived.

captiveplatypus -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 11:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ""The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy.....................If we use our military options now, thousands of innocent people will be killed along with the guilty" "I clearly wasn't calling for indiscriminant slaughter ... " .................you clearly were......... " "I admit to having a pet peeve against those that take half sentences, or something out of context, in order to make a response to a point that was never made by the original poster. Certain people here on this board, do it again, and again and again. At the college I attend, they would be laughed out of class." .........does this college also teach you to say what you mean? To think through the consequences of what you suggest? Because this isn't the first time someone on these fora has shown you a logical and inevitable consequence of things you suggest and you subsequently getting huffy........ I like how she made herself into a hypocrite by doing the exact same thing to me, then insult me, and completely ignore the rest of what I posted in response to her.

caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 12:37:06 PM)
Well ... this thread went about how I thought it would. [;)] "Kill them all" ... I never said that. "Nazi's, etc" ... I never said any of that either. My meaning was unclear, to everyone that didn't read the post, but instead read it for the purpose of inserting their own ideas and them responding to things I never really said. Funny, and predictable. If anyone reasonable wants to discuss this offline, I'm more than willing. Apologies to philosophy for the insults, but politeness didn't seem to work over the past few weeks. [;)]

captiveplatypus -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 12:44:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Well ... this thread went about how I thought it would. [;)] "Kill them all" ... I never said that. "Nazi's, etc" ... I never said any of that either. My meaning was unclear, to everyone that didn't read the post, but instead read it for the purpose of inserting their own ideas and them responding to things I never really said. Funny, and predictable. If anyone reasonable wants to discuss this offline, I'm more than willing. Apologies to philosophy for the insults, but politeness didn't seem to work over the past few weeks. [;)] So in other words because you don't like what I had to say you're simply going to ignore the points I tried to make? Or is it simply you can't effectively defend your standpoint? Did they teach you about being rude and pointing the finger in an argument instead of just discussing the topic at hand in college, too? Yeah, it's probably best you don't continue, or clarify as we asked, which you said you would, and instead just make more insults and avoid clarifying. And, no, you didn't say anything about Nazi's. I think I very clearly suggested your approach was Nazi-esque all on my own.

caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 1:04:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus So in other words because you don't like what I had to say you're simply going to ignore the points I tried to make? Or is it simply you can't effectively defend your standpoint? Did they teach you about being rude and pointing the finger in an argument instead of just discussing the topic at hand in college, too? Yeah, it's probably best you don't continue, or clarify as we asked, which you said you would, and instead just make more insults and avoid clarifying. And, no, you didn't say anything about Nazi's. I think I very clearly suggested your approach was Nazi-esque all on my own. I didn't say I was going to ignore the points you made. What I said was: "If anyone reasonable wants to discuss this offline, I'm more than willing." If answers and clarifications are what you want, my email is available to you, or anyone else. What I'm not going to do is engage in a useless feeding frenzy discussion, based on things not actually said by me ... or discussions about bombing everything left in Iraq, when I don't even consider them a real enemy. Email, if you wish.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 2:28:06 PM)
Some other food for thought - this from the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College. The report is entitled "Defeating Terrorism: Strategic Issue Analysis", and has 21 chapters by as many authors from the war college - they are the professors of war, if you will. It was written in 2002, prior to our invasion of Iraq, and can be found here: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB273.pdf Here are a few interesting quotes that show that the thinkers in the Army don't believe that the only thing that we need to do is just to kick more ass... quote: Author 1: Terrorists must be separated from popular support, a much more difficult matter, especially since the al Qaeda terrorists manifest religious motives widely shared by their fellow Muslims. There must be serious efforts to address the underlying motivations for terrorism without outright capitulation to their demands. Issues must be addressed without making compromises that neglect Israelís security or fail to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. quote: Author 2: What Would Suffice to End the Threat? This conception of war aims implies a center of gravity against which a successful campaign could be directed. If we can deny al Qaeda a flow of new recruits, we can eventually destroy it. : If they succeed in exporting their ideas to any significant portion of broader Islam, then we will never be able to cope militarily with the resulting flood of people and resources into Bin Ladenís camp. But if al Qaeda fails to spread its ideas, then even a slow-moving military campaign will eventually snuff it out. The center of gravity in this war thus lies in the hearts and minds of politically uncommitted Muslims: if bin Laden succeeds in converting them to his ideology of separatist jihad, then no plausible U.S. military effort will be sufficient to prevail; but if we succeed in winning the war of ideas, then al Qaeda will eventually be destroyed by our accompanying military operations. To do this it will not be necessary to uncover every last al Qaeda operative much less to kill every last terrorist worldwide. : First, we cannot approach this campaign as a war to convert Muslims to our way of life. Our aim must be to promote a third way: neither separatist extremism nor imposed Westernism. Al Qaeda and the Islamic mainstream are now so far apart that many such opportunities should exist for enabling the legitimate religious yearnings of everyday Muslims to see political expression without creating a dualistic struggle with Western ideals. quote: Author 3: U.S. leaders should reevaluate relations with so-called moderate Arab regimes in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where most popular political aspirations are repressed and where many terrorists have been produced including Osama bin Laden and most of the hijackers of September 11. The United States would probably benefit significantly if it could influence those regimes to reform. Continually propping them up and maintaining the status quo risks a revolutionary explosion in the long term, and will insure a new crop of terrorists in the short term. : The end result of broad attacks will just be to stretch American resources while still antagonizing an Islamic public easily convinced of its victimization. quote: Author 4: The United States can do little, if anything, to prevent Muslim extremists including al Qaidaís Osama bin Laden and the Talibanís Mullah Mohammad Umar from declaring jihad in response to U.S. military action against them. Questions about the right authority to call jihad will constrain the number of Muslims who would answer that call. However, an abundance of anti-American sentiments in the Arab and Islamic worlds sentiments generated over the past several decades by U.S. pro-Israeli and perceived anti-Islam policies and compounded by deteriorating socioeconomic conditionsóguarantee that a call to jihad by the Taliban and bin Laden will fall on many receptive ears across the Islamic world. Striving with sword, tongue, or wealthî; those who do respond might be enough to cause the stability of friendly Arab and other Muslim nations to be of concern. The United States could make that response even greater by expanding military action beyond bin Laden and the Taliban regime that harbors him. (NOTE FROM D4US: This is prescient, being written before the US invasion of Iraq) : The temptation exists to go after several affiliates of al Qaida. Many of these like Hamas and Hizbollah are scattered across the Arab world and are viewed by most Arabs and Muslims as organizations engaged in legitimate self-defense and national liberation efforts. Overt military action against such groups would be a grave strategic error if the United States wishes to contain the spread of the call to jihad. More grave would be a military campaign against so-called rogue states that for some time have graced the State Departmentís list of nations that support terrorism. In such an eventuality, containing the appearance that the United States was waging a war against Islam might be impossible. (NOTE FROM D4US: Again, prescient, having been written before the US invasion of Iraq and before the US support for an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The United States has much to lose if is unsuccessful in its efforts to avoid its war on terrorism being characterized as a war against Islam. Military action is unavoidable although it must be accompanied throughout the war by use of the nonmilitary elements of poweróbut it must carefully applied to avoid the specter of Muslim world united behind bin Laden.

philosophy -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 2:35:38 PM)
"If anyone reasonable wants to discuss this offline, I'm more than willing" .......intriguing........you feel it is sensible somehow to make outrageous comments publically here, but when asked to justify them you insist on doing so privately........i have to say, the college you have harkened back to several times has a unique debating style. ""Kill them all" ... I never said that. " .......this is demonstrably true......what you actually wrote was "The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy.....................If we use our military options now, thousands of innocent people will be killed along with the guilty" ......... ...............so don't kill all of them, just thousands of innocents. "My meaning was unclear, to everyone that didn't read the post" ....well, yes...........your meaning was very clear.....if innocents happen to live near your enemies you don't appear to have any problem with them being killed by an overwhelming use of force by your military. Surely somewhere in your world Caitlyn, the concept of right and wrong are discussed without reference to nationality. Surely you can agree that one american death equals one chinese death equals one iraqi death equals one british death. All those lives have equal value and worth. Your argument presupposes that your sides lives are more important than the other sides. Arguably an attitude sensible in an actual soldier in a firefight, but as useful as a piscine unicycle anywhere else.

Dauric -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 3:03:51 PM)
I think I see what caitlyn was saying, I just don't agree with it. It's the difference between invading Japan during WWII or dropping Little Boy and Fat Man. It's a stretched analogy to be sure but bear with me. Eisenhower had a tough decision to make, use the nuclear bombs and kill x number of civilians in untold ways, or invade Japan with conventional forces and have ten times that many die on both sides. Sure he took out civilians by dropping warheads on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but the overall loss of life military -and- civilian was much less than the alternative. I disagree with this as Israel has been doing percisely what caitlyn is saying, on a smaller scale but it's the same tactic. You find a cell of terrorists and destroy the entire apartment complex, terrorists and civilians alike. The circumstances are vastly different from 1945 Japan as is the culture of the middle east. Sure the Japanese had their own suicide bombers, the Kamakaze, but they operated for tactical and strategic gains. Middle eastern suicide bombers attaack for symbolic, political and even just at bloody random with no gains to be had other than some demented need for a body count. Now America certanly shouldn't cowtow to terrorist organizations, but a good hard look at those who we ally ourselves with, and -why- they are our allies wouldn't be amiss. A lot of regiemes that we put in power we did so to prevent thr oil fields of the middle east from becoming communist client states. NewsFlash: Cold War is over. Israel was a United Nations effort to give the jews a place to live after the atrocities of the death camps. Fine, great, too bad they've been inflicting their own atrocities on the palestinians (like firing attack-chopper rocket packs in to apartment complexes). Our foreign policy isn't the word of god handed down to congressional foreig policy committies on stone tablets. The world situation changes, our allies change their behavior, and we shouldn't be afraid to change our own policies in response to those changes. Just my own $0.02, Dauric.

popeye1250 -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 4:47:12 PM)
First it's no longer a "war" it's an "occupation." Secondly, if they "know" that Bin Laden and al qeada are in Pakistan then they should go right in and get the S.O.B.'s Who cares about "sovereignty? Does Mexico care about our sovereignty? And, as a U.S. Taxpayer I don't want to pay to "rebuild Iraq!" That wasn't part of the origional deal! "Iraqi Oil" was supposed to pay for that. With the exception of England when are we going to get "Allies" who pay their own way instead of sucking off of U.S. Taxpayers. Our Troops are the best in the world at War. They or anyone else are not very good at "Occupations." Occupations never work.

captiveplatypus -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 4:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Occupations never work. The irony in this sentence is making me giggle. But it's true!

popeye1250 -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 4:57:22 PM)
Captive, yes, I saw that as I typed it as well! lol If we stopped trading with China world oil demand would start to go down. Boy, this "Globalism" crap is really starting to backfire on us isn't it? It had to be someone from "Yale" who came up with this crap! That could be another thread- "Globalism".

Dauric -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 5:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Occupations never work. The irony in this sentence is making me giggle. But it's true! Never been in a union shop eh? (No ofense to the union guys that actually pull their weight on the jobsite.) $0.02, Dauric.

caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 5:50:46 PM)
Thank you for your response philosophy. It's finally a post that can be responded to with reason. Of course, a life is a life is a life. A child in Iran or Israel, is a just as important as a life in the United States. Preservation of life is important, and should be a primary goal. That said ... it ends there. On the global scale, Iran, Israel and the United States are not equals. The United States is the world's dominant power. Iran and Israel are not. That's just how things are ... like it or not. So, lets go through my points as they actually exist. "The greatest mistake we could make as a very powerful nation, is to allow our policies to be dictated by unfriendly nations and groups. That's only going to give everyone a clear model of how to get your way with the United States." This is pretty cut and dried. As a powerful nation, we cannot send signals that lobbing rockets at our friends is the way to get what you want from us. To do this would be foolish and an invitation to more violence and death. "This is going to sound harsh, but please read the entire thought before you flame me. [;)]" "The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy. I know ... that makes me sound like a war monger, and will probably make CrappyDom call me "sick" again ... but at least hear out the point of view, before you completely thrash it." "If we use our military options now, thousands of innocent people will be killed along with the guilty ... a very awful thing to be sure. Allow this to go on, and on, and on ... and ignore the simple truth that there isn't going to be a peacful solution to this, and it will escallate to the point where tens-of-millions will die, most of them innocent civilians." This is clearly the statement that led to much difficulty, and perhaps rightfully so. Just to be clear, the obvious with of any sane person, would be a completely peaceful resolution to all the difficulties of the world. It would be the best result now, it would have been the best result before the Second World War, it would have been the best result in AD9 when Varus marched his legions into an ambush, while thinking he was going to discuss peace. Wishing for the best result, doesn't make it happen. Wishing for a happy solution to unhappy problems, has never given us one. There comes a point in time, when if you are a serious person, who is serious about saving lives ... you have to make hard decisions. In the events before the Second World War, a few people willing to make a few hard and unpopular decisions, might have saved the lives of tens of millions or lives. Who is a war monger in that event? I would also like to point out, that I did say IF we used our military option now ... NOT, that we should abandon all other options, and go directly to the military option. It was presented as an option for discussion. That some took it as a call for war, is something you need to discuss with those that said it. I have no answer, for words that were not mine. "Is that what the peacenicks of today want ... to feel good about peace today, so that millions can die tommorow? Just for the record, "peace in our time" never happened, and even if it had, it was a poor legacy to pass on to the next generation." Again, pretty straight forward. If we wait around for a few years more ... hoping for a happy solution that always seem to elude us ... we can fight this again in five years, with weapons that will kill millions. So there you have it ... my response. Every line of my original response was outlined, other than the fluff opening. I see no need to respond to "who should we kill" posts, or "this is like the Nazi's" posts ... because those were things that were not said by me. The term "crush someone" can be taken many ways. It might be a military solution for one party, and crushing the reason for existence for another. For a third, it might be removing their power base. That some came to the conclusion that this meant more, is not something I can't answer. My suggestion is that you ask them what they mean. In closing, I have no problem with debating or discussing what I said ... but I have no way of responding to anyone, when they twist what I said well beyond it's original meaning ... not should I have to.

captiveplatypus -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 6:14:19 PM)
"My suggestion is that you ask them what they mean." Yes, while I may have seemingly twisted your words in the beginning, or rather given my own interpretation of what you were saying, I did then later ask and you chose not to respond to me at all.

caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 6:34:58 PM)
After my "What?" post, you said: "Attempting to eradicate an entire religious group... ya know.... the Jews? The Nazi's tried it and it didn't work for them. Nice to know you follow their outlook on dealing with a problem, just kill them all of course!" "Was that hard to follow?" I can't answer a question about something I never said. The only one that said anything about eradication of a religious group, was you. Not that I really had to answer it. You seemed to answer it in your next few lines. [;)] So, the only real question posed was, "Was that hard to follow?" My answer is, no.

mnottertail -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 6:39:56 PM)
quit fucking around you armchair philosophizers... What are our vital interests in the middle east? For the rest of you....read the 48 laws of power by Robert Greene..... give me a reason, give me a cause.......or let's burn the motherfucker down. what is the 'problem' we are solving there? Ron

captiveplatypus -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 6:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus So if you are not calling for indescriminant slaughter, yet saying we should kill them all..... what are you suggesting? cough

caitlyn -> RE: Big Picture: US Policies Need to Change to Win War On Terror? (8/17/2006 7:21:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus So if you are not calling for indescriminant slaughter, yet saying we should kill them all..... what are you suggesting? cough I didn't say we should kill them all. I can't answer that question. This is like me saying; "captiveplatypus, you said in post ten that you wanted everyone in Houston to drive their car in to Clear Lake. What are you suggesting when you say that?" A reasonable response might be, "What the fuck are you talking about Caitlyn, I never said that? Why are you asking me to explain something that I never said?" So, that's my answer. I never said we should kill than all, so I can't answer questions about it, and don't understand why you keep asking me to answer a question about something I never said. If you need an answer, go find the person that actually said it, and ask them. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875