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.

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........

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Occupations never work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Occupations never work.

The irony in this sentence is making me giggle.   But it's true!

quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus

So if you are not calling for indescriminant slaughter, yet saying we should kill them all..... what are you suggesting?

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*

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.