| Author |
Message |
    
mlj
Citizen
Username: Mlj
Post Number: 325
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:05 pm: | 
|
terror is a tactic
how can you wage war against a tactic
besides bombing and wounding and displacing and killing
what is achieved? gained? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
If I may quote Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:
'The Purpose OF Terrorism Is To Terrorize.' |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 574
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Chris Prenovost beat me to it.
In conventional warfare, one side tries to incapacitate the other side's miltary assets: soldiers, munitions plants, barracks and other war-making capacities. That can be done either through open warfare or sabotage.
In terrorism, the targets of the violence are not miltary assets but civilians, with the purpose of terrorizing the population into fleeing or falling into chaos, or losing the will to support the war and turning on their government.
As for SUVs, Smarty (?), I've asked Joel Dranove to stop by and explain to you the relationship between US overconsumption of oil and where Middle East terrorist groups who target the US get financing.
Cutting oil consumption is the single biggest thing Americans could do to reduce terrorist activity. But you can't just do it as individuals. You have to elect a government that will make it policy.
|
mlj
Citizen
Username: Mlj
Post Number: 326
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 7:21 pm: |
|
American colonies - militia - army - what would you call them |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
dead |
mlj
Citizen
Username: Mlj
Post Number: 327
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:37 pm: |
|
and ultimately victors who outlasted the occupying Brits resulting in USA |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Let's hold off on the "victors" stuff. It's uncivilized to discuss winners and losers. We should only discuss NY Times articles. Besides, did they really win or are we nothing more than surrogates of Blair? Either way, our grandchildren will all be speaking Chinese by the time they are not recieving social security benefits. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 74
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Ending hypocrisy as a war fighting strategy? It is precisely this type of “blame America first” mentality that will ensure the Democratic Party does not regain power. If I follow this line of reasoning correctly, any strategy we employ is doomed to failure because although we profess otherwise, America is nothing but a racist, corrupt, cancer on the planet responsible for every ill of mankind. Therefore, the proper response to 3,000 people being incinerated on 9-11 would have been some self-flagellating introspection.
I have one question. If we are so racist, owned by corporations, people have so much trouble making a living, people are not treated equally, and we are apparently a police state, why are we talking about building a wall to keep 500,000 illegal aliens out of the country every year? Why are there millions of visa overstays? Why are people breaking down doors to get into our universities? Why does the world eat our food, listen to our music, watch or movies, wear our clothes, purchase our goods, come to our hospitals for cutting edge medical care, conduct business in English, etc, etc. Sure – we are the great Satan - and the people who accuse us of that do so while listening to Emenem on an iPod in a Starbucks, wearing Levis, and filling out an application to Yale. Hell, the 9-11 hijackers were frequenting strip-joints before they attacked. It’s Yankee go home and take us with you.
Yes we pollute more per-captia, we also produce and innovate more per-capita. You want to end corporate welfare and open the borders? No problem, eliminate the minimum wage and stop requiring employers to make deposits into Social Security while you’re at it. Due process for any prisoners of war let alone terrorists? This is a war, not a criminal investigation. Regardless, I challenge you to cite for me any nation in history that has treated any prisoners of war let alone terrorists, who would in a second chop the head off any MOLer and play soccer with it, more humanly than us. We give them culturally sensitive meals for Christ’s sake! Our schools are deplorable and we are slowly giving ourselves a national lobotomy but how is a lack of ethics instruction responsible? We have a system that thanks to the teacher’s union, the top performers cannot be rewarded and the bottom of the barrel cannot be fired. What other result could there be? And if we did teach ethics, who’s ethics? Thanks to contemporary liberalism which bred post-modernism, there is no longer and right and wrong or good and bad, just individual perception and opinion. Except of course being judgmental or hypocrisy – the last two remaining sins for the left.
Foreign aid? By who’s estimate? How much money do we spend on things that are not technically counted as “foreign aid”? For example, at the height of the tsunami relief effort, some 16,000 U.S. military personnel were deployed throughout the areas most affected by the tragedy. More than two dozen U.S. ships (including an aircraft carrier battle group, a Marine amphibious group, and the hospital ship USNS Mercy, which remained after the main Naval forces departed) and over 100 aircraft were dedicated to the disaster relief effort at an estimated cost of some $5 million a day. How many lives were saved? Who else in the world has this capability? Answer – no one. Only we maintain a force, at great expense, that is basically the world’s 911 force. How much money do we flush down the UN toilet so that organization can do everything in its power to thwart or foreign policy?
No nation in history has done more good for more people than the U.S. Our benevolence, in spite of our power, in historically unprecedented. World War II, the Marshal Plan, the Cold War, (which we financed so Europe and Canada could build welfare states and create health care systems where you die waiting for cancer treatment). In Eastern Europe Ronald Reagan is revered as a saint.
Even in the Muslim world. Who has done more good than us? How many Muslims did we save in the Balkans? How many did we feed in Somalia before getting chased out of there? Kuwait owes its existence to us. Afghanistan is no longer living in a nightmare. Saddam Hussein, the biggest murderer of Muslims in history is in prison.
These people don’t hate us because of anything we have done or didn’t do. They resent our power, are jealous of our wealth, and above all despise the freedom, equality, Liberalism, and secularism that have made us the most powerful economic, military, and cultural power the world has ever seen. That’s why they hate us. It’s not our policies they hate; it’s our existence, because it reminds them every day of the total failure of their culture. Israel is a daily reminder in their own back yards.
Terrorism is a tactic and while it may not be possible to destroy a tactic it is possible to destroy those utilizing it. While I don’t think it’s possible to kill every terrorist I think it is possible to drain the swamps of despotism and religious fanaticism in which they are incubated. In that respect, I believe that the neocon foreign policy is the best way to achieve that end. I don’t see what other option there. Frequently, foreign policy and war making options are not between good and bad but between bad and worst and this is a prime example.
I agree that our petro-dollars fuel many of these criminal regimes around the world. The House of Saud, one of the most repressive monarchies on the planet, and exporters of the fanatical Wahhabism, being a prime example. Before the discovery of oil there, the Wahhabi were a virtually unknown fringe movement in Islam. Today, they finance Islamic schools right here in the U.S. What should make this arrangement even more embarrasing to us that the Saudis are still so inept that they have nothing to do with the oil industry. We discovered the oil, we get it out of the ground, we refine it, we ship it, we retail it. All they do is cash the checks and then finance Islamic fanaticism.
However, the notion that we can stop using oil is unrealistic for the forseable future. We can explore and extract more from our own terrortory and seek new sources of coal, oil shale, and build more nuclear plants which would increase our independence, but to what end? In the near future, China and India will consume far more oil than we will, so the money will still flow and our country will still be effected by world oil prices. It is simply impossible to extract ourselves from the effects of petro-dollars. We must change the regiems that rule these nations and breed terrorists which gets me back to the topic at hand.
Why does the neocon foreign policy not appeal to liberals? It is a policy that seeks to export freedom, democracy, Liberalism, egalatarism - in short, Western, Liberal values. What’s wrong with that? Doesen’t this assume the best about others? Fifty million people in Afghanastan and Iraq have been freed from trynical regiems. They have established representative governments. Is this a bad thing? It was pointed out that we have a habit of supporting dictators. Wasn’t Iraq the antethis of that? We could have left Saddam in place, propped him up even on the promise that he continuue killing Islamic fanactics and selling us oil cheap. I bet he would have gone for that deal. Or do liberals now believe that some people are simply incapable of responsible self-government and need either a dictator or colonial power to take care of them?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15364
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:39 pm: |
|
The US is the most evil country on the planet. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:06 am: |
|
Find an alternative to oil. No more bargaining with the devil, no more money for the supporters, no more blackmailing us to make nice with countries we need access to for pipelines.
If America would mind it's own business for a while we would all be better off. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2786
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:15 am: |
|
Quote:These people don’t hate us because of anything we have done or didn’t do. They resent our power, are jealous of our wealth, and above all despise the freedom, equality, Liberalism, and secularism that have made us the most powerful economic, military, and cultural power the world has ever seen. That’s why they hate us. It’s not our policies they hate; it’s our existence, because it reminds them every day of the total failure of their culture. Israel is a daily reminder in their own back yards.
Bingo.
And for the environmentalists and liberals among us (myself included) double Bingo for this
Quote:However, the notion that we can stop using oil is unrealistic for the foreseeable future. We can explore and extract more from our own territory and seek new sources of coal, oil shale, and build more nuclear plants which would increase our independence, but to what end? In the near future, China and India will consume far more oil than we will, so the money will still flow and our country will still be effected by world oil prices. It is simply impossible to extract ourselves from the effects of petro-dollars. We must change the regimes that rule these nations and breed terrorists which gets me back to the topic at hand.
My only disagreement is with your last paragraph. Should we have gone into Iraq or any country for that matter with or without oil but with a sadistic leader. Perhaps. But then get the heck out. Put a stake in the center of the town and in the best Schwartzenager accent say "We'll be back" if they start to show signs of impinging on our freedom or creating new terrorists. We should not be there now trying to "establish" democracy. They have plenty of examples and need to look within and no further than Israel to figure out what to do.
Combine some of that philosophy with a bit of Notehead's and Hoop's with its emphasis on ethics and perhaps we've got it.
We need to remember that Islam is the youngest of religions. Hopefully it will mellow over time but in the interim the radical segment of it is causing a large part of the upheaval and killing in the world.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3579
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:27 am: |
|
I wonder what would happen if oil suddenly lost its value.
Arab nations that support terrorism would lose their ability to do so.
Arab nations that use oil funds for public works projects are no longer able to fund them.
The funds used to quell "the masses" are no longer available.
The linked directions of western oil consumption and Arab oil would no longer exist. Arab governments would no longer need to temper their hatred of the US.
Would terrorism decline or increase? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:00 am: |
|
Some of the prescriptions supplied here are based on assumptions that terrorism is in fact a never-ending condition and that there is a bottomless well of potential terrorists, both of which tends to ignore history and reality.
In most of the Near East terrorism is a paid job, especially among the Palestinians. In the affluent west we believe that one acts as a terrorist out of pure ideology, while in the poor Near East the need to earn a living trumps other concerns. Drying up the funding of terrorism and denying state-sponsership will vastly help. Terrorists have also been smart in setting up social welfare institutions (like Hamas) in order to develop and retain loyalty of people. Making non-idelogical institutions available to people would also help.
The Palestinians have poured the aid money that they have received not into building an economy which would then give people an investment in the making of peace, but into making war. The semi-dirty words " regime change" would also be helpful in the Palestinian Authority, Iran,and Syria.
If some of the posts were correct the world would have had constant muslim-based terrorism since the time of the assassins in the 1200s. We have not. Historically violent muslim radicalism runs in cycles. The key at this point is to remove the more egregious players from the battlefield.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4509
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:11 am: |
|
Regime change is a dirty word because it holds the potential for chaos and civil war, especially when initiated by outside forces.
Near East terrorism is a paid job. Darn tootin'. And that's why I have been demanding for years that Hamas pay minimum wage and provide health care coverage for suicide bombers. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
tjohn-
There have been studies of suicide bombers.
Survey says:
Young unattached males especially susceptible to indoctrination. Ideology alone does not do it.
Female suicide bombers generally have been those who have "dishonored" their families ( been raped, divorced by husband for being unable to concieve, adulterous or family sexual contact). They regain their "honor" and give the family an equal share by going ka-boom.
Plus you get 72 virgins.
Does this really sound like brave ideological freedom fighters to you?
Or screwed up kids and second class citizen women who are mentally abused into such acts by people who would never dream of performing them themselves? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4512
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
I was merely questioning the notion that suicide bombers are paid terrorists. To me, being a paid terrorist of the non-suicidal variety isn't much different from being a hit-man for a drug lord.
And, I can't resist this:
"Or screwed up kids and second class citizen women who are mentally abused into such acts by people who would never dream of performing them themselves?"
You mean like when Messrs. Bush and Cheney decided that Iraq would be a good war for OP children to fight? |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 75
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
A friend of mine recently back from Iraq told me they are using younger and younger people as suicide bombers, frequently slightly retarded, and usually doped up. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap - that is interesting, but if the person is a suicide bomber, how do we know that they are retarded or doped up? Is this good news or bad news?
Iraq is getting more and more dangerous for ordinary Iraqis. Everyday we here about bombs, kidnappings, murders and bodies found here and there. The death toll is far higher now then before the new Iraqi government was formed.
|
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 76
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:21 pm: |
|
They either fail to detonate and are captured (happens a lot actually) or the information is learned after the fact from friends or family of the bomber. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 77
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
And yes, the violence does seem to be getting worse but it's still only in certain areas. Unfortunately, one of those areas is Baghdad. Most alarmingly, I read recently that increasing numbers of upper class Iraqis who have been hanging on are starting to flee the country. That is not a good development. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 78
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 2:42 pm: |
|
But lets not forget this violence that is no longer happening:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12185
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
There are stories in today's papers estimating that the current warfare in Iraq is killing 100 people a day. This is heavy, even by Saddam standards. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3606
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Most alarmingly, I read recently that increasing numbers of upper class Iraqis who have been hanging on are starting to flee the country. That is not a good development.
I couldn't agree more. They cannot truly rebuild if their best and brightest all flee. If that keeps up, Iraq will turn into a Middle Eastern version of Haiti. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 4:17 pm: |
|
tjohn-
I am still curious as to why you haven't given your house back yet to the Lenna Lennapi Indians, the legitimate owners of New Jersey, as the western colonizer that you are, as per your own standards.
Say what you will about Bush, but we are and still remain, in a global war with 12th century terrorists who spit on your values and ideas and who would love to kill millions of us. Their idea of peace with you is either that you are converted or dead. We are in Iraw now, and we can't afford to cut and run. If we do we are ensuring this war is brought to our shores. You don't want to understand your enemies, you want to place your head in the sand like an ostrich ( I didn't use another analogy with your head up some other place, which I do think is much more appropriate).
Bob K-
Millions dies during the Chinese and Russian revolutions and thereafter. Where was the outrage? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4513
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
FvsF,
As I pointed out, rightly or wrongly, the white European colonization of North America was the kind that succeeds because the original inhabitants, never numerous, were annihilated by the new arrivals.
The European colonists that established Israel, while better organized or more powerful than the original inhabitants have not annihilated them.
I know of no colony that has succeeded where the original inhabitants were not annihilated.
The best Israel can hope for is an outcome such as South Africa - a pretty good outcome actually.
So, at the end of the day, I am making an observation based on history and I am not stating some moral position that would involve returning America to the pre-European inhabitants. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 79
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 8:35 pm: |
|
I'll be adding this book to my reading list:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008674 |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Therefore, the proper response to 3,000 people being incinerated on 9-11 would have been getting Bin Laden. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:58 pm: |
|
tjohn-
Your grasp of history is elusive. Very.
Foj-
I thought you would be posting Senator Menendez's position on waging the war on terror here.  .
November is only 4 months away ! |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 464
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 8:27 am: |
|
FvF: Can you tell me how U.S. Troops leaving Iraq "ensur(es) this war is brought to our shores." I've heard this slogan from the Administration over and over and I still don't get it. Honestly.
Are we killing insurgents in such great numbers in Iraq that leaving would allow them the time and freedom to multiply and organize attacks against the U.S. - in the U.S.?
If we leave Iraq will the insurgents build great war ships and invade America?
I assume its closer to the former explanation than the latter but, again, I've never heard a rationale for the slogan. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 80
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 8:36 am: |
|
And killing Bin Laden would change what? His ability to make videos from whatever cave he is hiding in? While we have some personal business to settle with him, which we hopefully will, victory against Islamofascism does not hinge on his death or capture. However, while we are on the subject, while Bin Laden is the head of Al Quaeda and maybe thought up the 9-11 attacks, the operational mastermind of 9-11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, a coordinator of the 9-11 attacks have been captured and are in GITMO. But we need to get them lawyers so they can go to District Court and file motions to suppress statements and evidence because they were gathered without Miranda warnings and warrants - right? |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 81
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 8:38 am: |
|
9-11 showed they don't need to build warships. |
Mtam
Citizen
Username: Mtam
Post Number: 122
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
TJohn--The Spanish empire did not "annhiliate" all its inhabitants in the colonies, though it was a violent rule, and many did die or were enslaved. Nor did the U.S. in the Philippines. Ireland was, in fact, the precursor to what we think of as modern colonies. There are many other examples. So I think your historical analogy and argument doesn't quite work. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4522
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Mtam,
Precisely my point. Does Spain still have any colonies? Are we still the colonial master of the Philippines? Certainly Spain greatly influenced her colonies with language and religion, but at the end of the day, the colonies broke away from Spain.
If America had been inhabited by peoples and numerous and advanced as the Indians of India or the Chinese in China, there would not today be the United States as we know it.
In any case, in Palestine, either the two state solution works or the Palestinians and Israelis merge to form a unique new structure or the cycles of violence will continue until somebody uses nuclear weapons. |
Mtam
Citizen
Username: Mtam
Post Number: 123
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
Except that by the time the colonies broke away, the distinction between a criollo, who was part European, pure Spanish, and those that were colonized were less clear. All of these are Spanish-speaking New World cultures now, with most people of mixed descent. It's not as if after decolonization everyone who was Spanish left. That's no small thing. Indeed one could argue that the America we have today would resemble more the rest of the New World.
To me, the analogy of other colonizations don't work as well because the Jews were not coming from a singular "mother" country that ruled from afar (and say, they would return to), but from a dispersed, diasporic culture to create a sense of modern nationhood. Within Israel, in many ways, it is really two nations as well, Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3599
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Plus, America fought for her independence prior to being recognized as an independent nation. Israel fought for her independence (existence, actually), after she was recognized as a nation by much of the world. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4524
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 11:34 am: |
|
Mtam, Rastro:
I appreciate the adult responses. |
Mtam
Citizen
Username: Mtam
Post Number: 124
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Same here. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Twokitties-
I am not a Bush administration spokesperson, just someone who does not join in on some of the group think that goes on here on MOL, and has an academic background, etc. in the Near East.
I did not see the need to invade Iraq but that's me (I do see the need to attack Iran). My supposition is that the Bush administration applied " the worst case" scenerio to wmds in Iraq based on its terrorist policy of "assume the worst" after 9-11, and the faulty intelligence supplied it (it happens, the CIA's human intelligence abilities,to be fair, were also gutted under democratic administrations). Whatever classified information they had regarding ties between Saddam Hussein and groups like Al Queda may have also been a factor. History will tell us or our kids, more about the rationale forgoing into Iraq.
Radical islamists view the muslim world in essense as holy soil, and the physical presence of non-believers in it, or merely the perceived influence of non-believers over it, to be proscribed.
The presence of U.S. troops in a Moslem country would be the locus and concentration point of jihadi violence and armed activities. The limited resources of terrorist arms, manpower, and activities would then be applied to Iraq first, rather than targeted in a significant way to America domestically.
As we all know, our borders are extremely porous, and to defend against any eventuality is pretty much impossible.
We would be targeted even if we were not physically in arab lands because we are perceived to have influence and interests in them. The radical view is that any and all of our involvement in them must end.
Consider that while the loss of one soldier's life is regrettable, American troops are armed and capable of defending themselves, American civilians not.
The presence of a large number of American troops so close bye in Iraq also deters Syria and Iran from employing terrorist proxies to attack the US at the moment.
The leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is a member of a group of extremist islamists that believes that certain actions must take place to ensure the return of the 12th mahdi, who will create a muslim caliphate on earth. Some state Ahamdinejad believes this will occur in 2 years time. Scary stuff. We must do whatever we have to to deter this fanatic sicko. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Factvsfiction- You may not be joining in the group think here on MOL, but you're definitely joining in the group think at Little Green Footballs. Remember this, you're solidly in the minority in this country, forget about the world, in your support for our Supreme Court appointed Constitution shredding, miserable excuse for a government. If you don't get involved with the "group think" on MOL, that doesn't make you somehow righteous, it underlines the fact that you're in a minority, generally.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
check out some of the comments, if it's not hate, the moderator screens you off...
|
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 465
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Thanks for your response.
If I understand you correctly "Staying the course" means that since radical Islamists hate our way of life regardless of what we do, we might as well distract them with a military presence on thier soil so that they don't have the resources or time to organize an attack on U.S soil. Is that it?
That seems like a strategy with no conclusion - and, frankly, no strategy.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 579
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
"The presence of a large number of American troops so close bye in Iraq also deters Syria and Iran from employing terrorist proxies to attack the US at the moment."
Does anybody actually believe this? Not only has the invasion of Iraq strenghtened the radicals of Iran, it has made us fight on their turf and on their terms, with a loss of American life that now exceeds what happened on 9/11.
Even were that cockamamie theory true, wouldn't it turn at least some people's stomachs to hear, as a "justification" for the waging war on a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, "It keeps our fannies safe while other Americans are set up to be decoys abroad."
If somebody wants to deter extremist Islamists from re-establishing the caliphate, why not quit playing footsie with Musharraf in Pakistan and tell him turn over Bin Laden? Or -- quit electing an American government who is more interested in controlling oil production in the region than in its about protecting America from terrorism.
Can we also drop this canard about the Leni Lenapes being unable to return to Maplewood. Nothing could stop anyone with that ancestry from moving to Maplewood and voting here. By contrast, people are saying that Palestinians should be paid money never to return to their ancestral homes and they should never be allowed to vote there lest they constitute a majority. That would be as if people in Maplewood who opposed an eruv had succeeded in banning it on the notion that if Orthodox Jews became a voting majority here, that would be unacceptable.
No one has proposed giving away land inside Israel to displaced Palestinians (so far as I know). But plenty of people are saying that just because somebody is of Palestinian ancestry, they should be barred from returning to the town where they grew up or where they still have relatives, even if it isn't inside Israel but only occupied by Israel, because they would likely vote in ways the existing political majority doesn't want. A lot of people in democratically-run countries are not going to support such policies.
|
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
"Scary stuff. We must do whatever we have to to deter this fanatic sicko."
I've got a great idea Fact, and it will give you something to do. Go to the newsstand, and pull out as many subscription stubs as you can, when nobody's looking, from as many magazines as you can. Then, check "Yes" in the sign me up for a two year subscription box and send them to the leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad. He'll be so busy trying to figure out how to cancel them, he'll have no time to harry the U.S. or dominate Europe. Hell, after awhile the collections calls will bring him to the table.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
First off, I have to say that the responses that I got to my post were interesting, and seemed to reflect the ingrained prejudices that exist here in MOL political chat.
If you read my post I believe you will conclude that I did not believe in the invasion of Iraq. Personally I think a trade and sea embargo would have been the better steps. I was asked to explain the possibilities of why "its better to fight them there than here". I presented it in a brief and simple way.
Three posters jumped on their interpretation of it, in order to show howright they are in their particular perspectives. Ae35unit suggests we over-subscribe Ahmadinejad with magazines, ignoring the reality that this man poses the greatest contemporary threat to our country and our childrens' future in the world today.
Must I add again and again that I voted for Bush in the last election ONLY, so that there is a possibility of a serious discussion with you people, beyond your partisan invectives?
If you would like to have a sophisticated discussion about this and a real give-and-take, tell me. Otherwise I will just conclude I am wasting my time posting to this thread. |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 466
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
I am very much interested in give and take. I honestly don't understand the "fight them there" justification. I don't claim to have the answer to the conflict in Iraq, but I think I have interpreted your words correctly.
If I interpreted you correctly, then I simply disagree with you as to the soundness of this as a justification for our presence in Iraq. It seems like a very circular argument to me. Nobody "wins" this face off. We continue to look like occupyers to them, they continue to look like terrorists to us. Therefore we need to kill each other. Nothing changes and something very, very, very drastically needs to change in this situation. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12197
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:32 am: |
|
You can't fight terror with a conventional army and tactics. I think we should have learned that after Vietnam and our current experiences in Iraq, as well as the Israelis inability to control terror attacks in their country, although they do use unconventional tactics as well.
We took Afghanistan back by paying, arming and leading indigenous forces (aka warloards) opposed to the Taliban. This was done with no more than five hundred Special Forces troops.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Twokitties-
Thanks for the gracious reply. Briefly for now, more later:
If I was cynical, I could say that our presence in Iraq fufills two functions.
The first is to attempt "shock and awe" on arab regimes and the region's future by facilitating the creation of a modern, democratic, arab state. A risky gamble but a bold initiative that would have profound impact on our allies and enemies in the region who both would be forced to fundamentally change as a result. In a sense it is better to see if you can achieve a snowball effect towards more representative and economically focused societies in the Middle East, before you start simply bombing the @#%& out of everything and everybody there when they have become a regional terror swamp. Note that the Bushies don't have to create a perfect Iraqi democracy,just be reasonably successful. So far a mixed bag. But then again, you can expect it when it is not a self-initiated revolution.
The millitary presence does deter a better level of terrorism than what we have gotten so far from Al Queda from Iranian and Syrian proxies. Airpower from aircraft carriers does not alone do the job, boots on the ground does. The presence also serves to prop up the Saudis and allow quicker access to their oil reserves if that corrupt kingdom falls.
In short, are we in Iraq now due to global terrorism? Yes and no.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3612
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:00 pm: |
|
You don't want to understand your enemies, you want to place your head in the sand like an ostrich ( I didn't use another analogy with your head up some other place, which I do think is much more appropriate).
Is that an example of the "sophisticated discussion" you claim to desire? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:26 pm: |
|
notehead-
And who are we to talk, considering you called me a pri#k and suggested I receive "elephant offal" in another thread ?
If you respond emotionally to everyone you disagree with, not only do you fail to convince them, you also de-legitimize the rationality of your views.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3613
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 4:43 pm: |
|
The post you refer to was in response to your previous actions on that thread, and you know that, and so does everyone else.
I don't disagree with all of your opinions on current events (actually I think Kathleen and others bring some of the best info and ideas lately) and it's great that you have a lot of accumulated knowledge to share, but your online persona really doesn't become you. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1141
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 5:50 pm: |
|
notehead-
Your response sounds like schoolyard stuff, sorry to say. It is ok to call me a pr#ck because I believe I am more familiar with some things on this topic than some other posters?
The fact you reference kathleen's posts (read my replies to them) as somehow dispositive on anything involving Israel pretty much indicates your ideological bent to me, as well as the fact you can't be objective.
If you are unaware, every friday in Montclair there is a demonstration against the war in Iraq. Since I am there quite frequently on fridays, I speak to some of those folks. Nice people with best intentions. IMHO, fuzzy understanding of the realities in the Middle East, but you know what? We can talk and still be somewhat civil. No emotionalism, but some warmth. Here, misplaced gladiator contests.
The reality of the Middle East is that it is a place that is only impressed by power and ruthlessness. The father of Assad in Syria, when confronted by a rebellion in a Syrian city, slaughtered at least 10,000 of his own people. Not by accident, but by choice. Israel... well different and double standard and story.
We are not fighting likeminded western secularists or a european country like Belgium.These people say what they mean and mean what they say. Do you believe the temerity of that Hezbollah thug Nasrallah that the US is now going to be hit? They have already killed 240 marines and slaughtered that poor Navy diver in cold blood. Reality should be a wakeup call for you progressives.
|
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2585
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
"I know of no colony that has succeeded where the original inhabitants were not annihilated."
The Muslim empire itself is a model of conquest in which the original inhabitants were not annihilated, but instead were assimilated and/or subjugated. Ever wonder what happened to the Phoenicians? Today we call them "Lebanese."
Rome did the same thing. Or do you think the Picts and Celts were all annihilatedand & replaced by early-model Italians?
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4533
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 6:45 am: |
|
There are many cases of colonies being absorbed by the host country leaving a varying legacy. After 1066, William the Conqueror assumed control of England and for a while, William and his descendants dominated affairs. French was spoken at high-levels. Eventually, the larger English element of the population reasserted itself.
China absorbed the invading Mongols.
The Greek rulers of Egypt became Egyptian over time so as not to be so foreign.
Religions are something else entirely. Religions behave more like infectious diseases that become endemic without killing the host population. |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2590
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
"The Greek rulers of Egypt became Egyptian over time so as not to be so foreign."
Jews in Israel are not a minority ruling a majority of Arabs. That's the case in the West Bank, but not in Israel proper.
However, if you count the number of Mizrahis, Sephardis, and Arabs together, Israel is already a majority Arab country, assuming Arab-ness has something to do with where your ancestors came from. It's just that it's also mostly Jewish, and will stay that way for much longer than most people think.
Check out this article, "Voodoo Demographics," which describes a rather interesting discovery concerning Palestinian populations: http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=307. (The site requires free registration.)
|
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
I would fight the global war on terrorism with information! ESPIONAGE! |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
tjohn-
Perhaps you should read the lyrics to the Israeli nation anthem "Hatikvah".
The Jews were the indigenous people. And they have returned to their home.
" To be a free people,
in our land,
the land of zion and jerusalem" |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page