Hezbollah --- All Out War!

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
The problem is that it isn’t the government or the populace that the war is being waged against. Killing off civilians in Iraq won’t improve the situation.[/quote]

Those civilians are giving aid and comfort to the insurgents. Do you think the insurgency would be able to operate if it was denounced and opposed by the population?

Trying to wage war without killing a single civilian is completely ridiculous. It’s sure sounds good in principle, but you’re castrating yourself if you try to actually implement it.

No, you don’t get to dismiss it this easily. Once you are willing to consider killing tons of innocent people for your cause, then I get to question how do you decide which innocent people aren’t worthy of such treatment.

When Nazi Germany was being carpet bombed in WWII, do you think we managed to avoid killing any civilians? I find this attitude that every innocent should be spared really odd. If you don’t want to shed any blood, don’t wage the damn war to start with. Wait until they show up in your back yard… Maybe you’ll be able to ask them to spare you because you’re innocent too?

No, it’s not a throwaway, because I’ll maintain that current wars are not being waged against a government or a government controlled entity. It changes the nature of things, at least in my opinion. The populace is not something the current combatants will care about. Damaging the populace increases the power of the enemy… not something we are used to.

We don’t get to choose the form of the enemy. If it takes the form of a multi-national ideological movement, then that’s what we have to fight.

Damaging the populace always increases the support for the enemy, at least at first. In the same way that if I punch you in the face, you’re most likely to react with anger. If I punch you in the face, then break both you knees and threaten to shoot you in the gut, you’ll probably cry uncle.

Again, I’ll point to WWII Japan; a nation of people for whom honor is paramount. Still, they preferred to surrender rather than risk more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. Even if a large component of insurgents are ready to die for their cause, it’s likely that the population itself is not so keen on martyrdom and would eventually stop supporting them.

[quote]I’m arguing that as technology evolves, it will become possible for one fanatic to wipe out a nation. Perhaps targeted nanotechnology and/or biological agents. Perhaps personal sized miniature nukes. Who knows. The problem is, more concentrated power makes smaller groups more and more powerful.

Give it another 200 years.[/quote]

Aren’t you arguing against yourself here? Do you really want to give time to those groups to grow more powerful and to acquire better weapons? Do you think that negotiating with a nuclear capable Al-Qaeda would be an improvement?

If they had such weapons available, do you think they would hesitate in using them?

Being ruthless just creates hatred. Sure, you might win against conventional forces or decimate populations. The cost however is becoming an evil that world loathes. You can’t just throw off all aspects of civilization and expect to be able to put them back on.

They already hate us. Let them hate us more if they want. At least they’ll hate us for a valid reason.

Until they wake up and realize that it’s their own government and tribal and religious leaders that are keeping them in the stone age, they’ll never be able to build a civilization with which we can engage in meaningful commerce.

Waging a quick, harsh and brutal war is not being ruthless; in fact, in retrospective it’ll probably appear more humane. It would certainly send a clear message that targeting the West is counter-productive.

You consider drastic widespread death and destruction a “fix”, while I consider it something that will extend the conflict to later generations. Eventually the solution will come about, and it will be a solution when everyone chooses not to go around killing everyone.

I’m talking about stepping up the war because doing it “nicely” doesn’t work. We removed a dictator and offered them a democracy; and all they could do with it is give themselves an Islamic Theocracy with a civil war to boot? Fine, we’ll stop the civil war and we’ll run the place for 20-30 years until you’re ready to take over an join civilization.

I think my way would, in the long run, work better than yours. You’ve got a civil war because the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds can’t get along? Blow away the Sunni triangle and then ask the Shia and Kurds if they want to play nice; or if you must remove another player?

I’m really not sure how to get there, but thinking about how to get there and looking for ways to do it is better than just assuming there are no ways to get there.

You assume there is a way to get there. Their might not be. Have you considered that? Also, when do you stop looking for a way? A year? Two? Ten? Maybe Iran gets the nuke during that time and comes in to take over… what then? Do you also back down and retreat?

Anyway, next time I’m in charge of something, maybe I’ll have more ability to actually “solve” real world crisis situations. I’m not trying to point blame at the past, but I’m trying to bring about considerations of how to shape the future. One is potentially more constructive than the other… though the potential is still small.

If everyone involved thought as you do, it might work. The problem I have with your reasoning, is that you’re assuming an educated, logical and reasonable enemy who has as much to lose as you do.

That is not the case.

I’ll give you an example. When you see popular rallies in the West, what do you see mostly? Peace rallies. People walking against this or that war; people who want peace.

When there’s a rally in the Arab world, what do you see? People with signs that say “Death to America” “Israel = Satan”; they burn GWB in effigy; they attack buildings. Hell, they burned the fucking Pope in effigy because he repeated the words of a Byzantine emperor…

You really think the people in the street over there are “just like us?”

Sure, very true. I’m not happy with that either. However, dropping bombs on the reigion and killing millions will only make things worse. You can buy the issue for a while, but it won’t go away.

You’re dead wrong. Did bombing Germany and Japan make them mortal enemies for generations? No. The exact opposite. Germany and Japan now enjoy some of the most vigorous economies on the planet and are both allies. I don’t see why Middle Eastern countries could not follow the same path. Give them a righteous ass-kicking, show them that either they stop that stupid shit, or yes, we will wipe them off the fucking planet. Of course, we have no intention of actually killing 200 million to a billion people; but like I said, once you kill enough, they’ll back down. No one fights a hopeless battle to the death.

These are ideas we are fighting, so what we really need to be doing is winning the war of ideas and ideals. That’s why I’m looking well beyond the concept of killing the most people and “winning” the war.

Most of their ideas haven’t changed since the 700s. Do you really think you’ll make them into secular liberals by talking to them nicely? They’ll spit in your face and laugh at your weakness. You really should learn a bit more about their culture. Their social mores are nothing like ours.

That’s hardly fair and you know it. Did you say something about an HH tactic earlier?

I gave my ideas a couple of times about how to go about it. My first one is to drastically increase troop presence, impose martial law and forcibly restore the peace. Unfortunately, I don’t see how that option is possible. The US won’t reinstate a draft and NATO members won’t pick up the slack, since Bush told them to go fly a kite in 2003.

So, given that we can’t have more troops, we need to have less enemies. We have humongous stockpiles of NBC (Nuclear-Bio-Chemical) weapons which we’re afraid to use. We probably shouldn’t use chemical weapons, since Bush blabbed incessantly about Saddam using them. Bio weapons are a bit hard to contain, so that leaves nuclear. The US probably still has a few neutron bomb lying around. They’re expensive to make and even more expensive to maintain. They kill living being while leaving infrastructures mostly intact, and they have no (or little) lingering radiation problems.

Pick the side you want to give the country too, and nuke the other one into submission. Sunni and Shia hate each other with a passion, so whatever side is spared probably won’t hate you that much.

You claim I am out of touch but then complain that current reality, about how wars are fought, is the problem. That is the current reality. It’s not going to change except when necessity forces it to change.

Why won’t it change? It changed before, it can surely change again. I’ll tell you this, if we don’t change the way we wage war, we better get used to losing. Your great-great-great grandchildren will most likely kneel on a mat five times a day to pray in the direction of mecca.

Holding back is a development of social mores and attitudes that represent the development of mankind. Sure, not everyone has developed the same ideals and mores, and some of ours could be weaknesses in some ways.

He sees the light! Alleluia.

I don’t understand the need people have to “play by the rules” when the opposing side doesn’t. Ever played a game honestly with someone that cheats constantly? Did you ever win?

However, I’ll say the same to you, you are denying the reality of the use of force. Historical situations are not necessarily applicable anymore… you are trying to win the previous battles while the world is changing.

I’m proposing my solutions to current conflicts. I’m tired of these endless wars going on and on while we have terrible weapons stored in warehouses gathering dust. If they’re so ready to die for their cause, who are we to argue?

We are fighting ideas with bullets. Strangely, the ideas are not being suppressed…

Because we haven’t yet made it clear that we won’t stand for those ideas.

Yes, let’s fight the militants with the bullets, but get some of our dogs into the fray when it comes to the war of ideas.

I don’t think the problem is that they’re unaware of “our ideas.” The problem is that they know your ideas and they hate them.

Take this example: The nineteen 9/11 hijackers lived for months, and in some cases years in the US. They were not only exposed to our ideas, they lived our way of life for weeks on end. Did anyone of them think that he might want to live here with his family? Apparently not. They still boarded those planes and slammed the WTC and Pentagon.

What more do you want to tell those people? Are you ready to convert to Islam in the name of peace?

Another path to victory is to stop the creation of people motivated to step in front of our bullets. Heck, the military aspect of this will probably simmer for generations, so let’s get some effort into those other areas.

If you’ll stop repeating that and give me concrete, pragmatic ways of achieving those goals, I’m all ears.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Those civilians are giving aid and comfort to the insurgents. Do you think the insurgency would be able to operate if it was denounced and opposed by the population?[/quote]

Which ones, which civilians, exactly? However, anyone who does denounce it gets hit with a death squad… so I don’t blame them for keeping their mouths shut.

However, you are preaching to the choir, I’m the guy with a thread calling the population sheep waiting for peace, instead of bringing it about themselves.

Trying to wage war without killing a single civilian is completely ridiculous. It’s sure sounds good in principle, but you’re castrating yourself if you try to actually implement it.

Who in the fuck is advocating such a thing? Stop being so silly. The trick is, and generally always has been, from the point of view of the west, to avoid excess or needless collateral damage.

When Nazi Germany was being carpet bombed in WWII, do you think we managed to avoid killing any civilians? I find this attitude that every innocent should be spared really odd. If you don’t want to shed any blood, don’t wage the damn war to start with. Wait until they show up in your back yard… Maybe you’ll be able to ask them to spare you because you’re innocent too?

What the hell are you talking about? The carpet bombing wasn’t meant to kill civilians, it was the best they could do at the time with the technology they had. They were going after factories and other targets of opportunity and civilians were caught in the crossfire.

That’s war. Where the hell do you get the idea that I’m opposed to a normally executed war where the military picks military targets and goes after them with whatever means it deems necessary to take out those targets?

We don’t get to choose the form of the enemy. If it takes the form of a multi-national ideological movement, then that’s what we have to fight.

Damaging the populace always increases the support for the enemy, at least at first. In the same way that if I punch you in the face, you’re most likely to react with anger. If I punch you in the face, then break both you knees and threaten to shoot you in the gut, you’ll probably cry uncle.

Again, I’ll point to WWII Japan; a nation of people for whom honor is paramount. Still, they preferred to surrender rather than risk more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. Even if a large component of insurgents are ready to die for their cause, it’s likely that the population itself is not so keen on martyrdom and would eventually stop supporting them.

Again, in Japan losing cities, or centers of production, spelled defeat for Japan and they knew it. The government, which cared for it’s own citizens, decided to give up. Kill everyone in Iraq and who’s going to decide to give up?

Aren’t you arguing against yourself here? Do you really want to give time to those groups to grow more powerful and to acquire better weapons? Do you think that negotiating with a nuclear capable Al-Qaeda would be an improvement?

If they had such weapons available, do you think they would hesitate in using them?

You think the world will be full of loving and peaceful people in two hundred years? Violence is generally a cycle. We’ll either decide to find ways to live peacefully or we’ll blow up the planet… those are the eventual choices, what does it matter if it’s 100 years from now or 200 years from now (other than selfishly pushing it off as far as possible).

They already hate us. Let them hate us more if they want. At least they’ll hate us for a valid reason.

Until they wake up and realize that it’s their own government and tribal and religious leaders that are keeping them in the stone age, they’ll never be able to build a civilization with which we can engage in meaningful commerce.

Waging a quick, harsh and brutal war is not being ruthless; in fact, in retrospective it’ll probably appear more humane. It would certainly send a clear message that targeting the West is counter-productive.

I’m talking about stepping up the war because doing it “nicely” doesn’t work. We removed a dictator and offered them a democracy; and all they could do with it is give themselves an Islamic Theocracy with a civil war to boot? Fine, we’ll stop the civil war and we’ll run the place for 20-30 years until you’re ready to take over an join civilization.

I think my way would, in the long run, work better than yours. You’ve got a civil war because the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds can’t get along? Blow away the Sunni triangle and then ask the Shia and Kurds if they want to play nice; or if you must remove another player?

No, you’ve got a civil war because a third party in the area opened up the gates of enmity between various factions in the country. That third party may or may not even have to fan the flames any more, but it’s still skulking around if the flames were to die down.

[quote]
You assume there is a way to get there. Their might not be. Have you considered that? Also, when do you stop looking for a way? A year? Two? Ten? Maybe Iran gets the nuke during that time and comes in to take over… what then? Do you also back down and retreat?[/quote]

Why would you stop looking? There may be a way, there may not be a way, but if you don’t at least look for it, you certainly won’t find it. Your eyes are closed except to hatred, violence and superior firepower.

If you had a conventional enemy, like Saddam’s military, then you could go in there and crush them. Now, all you can do is blindly kill people who may or may not be your enemy. That’s not going to bring about peace until you blow up the entire Middle East.

If everyone involved thought as you do, it might work. The problem I have with your reasoning, is that you’re assuming an educated, logical and reasonable enemy who has as much to lose as you do.

That is not the case.

I’m not assuming anything. The only thing I’m assuming is that if someone came to Canada and dropped a bomb on my family I’d hate them. I’d probably be willing to throw away my life to get revenge.

How you imagine that the region will suddenly be a bunch of happy people because you throw a lot of bullets at the populace is beyond me. The hatred will just fester until people learn not to hate each other. Bullets aren’t the way to do that.

When there’s a rally in the Arab world, what do you see? People with signs that say “Death to America” “Israel = Satan”; they burn GWB in effigy; they attack buildings. Hell, they burned the fucking Pope in effigy because he repeated the words of a Byzantine emperor…

You really think the people in the street over there are “just like us?”

LOL. You think they aren’t human? You think they don’t love their families? You think they don’t want food on their tables? Of course they are similar to us, they are just consumed with hatred at the moment.

You think we’d act any different if we were fed generations worth of propaganda inciting us to hatred and violence and supported by the leaders of our religions? Of course not, that’s what people do when they are consumed by hatred and have demonized the enemy.

I’d question your level of naivety to assume this isn’t a human thing, that we aren’t all capable of the same depravities. Just look at all the justification for torture floating around these days. Hatred can justify almost anything… of course they are very similar to us, while in a very different psychological state. They are still human, still people, with the same physiology as us.

You’re dead wrong. Did bombing Germany and Japan make them mortal enemies for generations? No. The exact opposite. Germany and Japan now enjoy some of the most vigorous economies on the planet and are both allies. I don’t see why Middle Eastern countries could not follow the same path. Give them a righteous ass-kicking, show them that either they stop that stupid shit, or yes, we will wipe them off the fucking planet. Of course, we have no intention of actually killing 200 million to a billion people; but like I said, once you kill enough, they’ll back down. No one fights a hopeless battle to the death.

Again, you are talking about countries. People led by governments and loyal to those governments, within the countries controlled by those governments. That is not the current situation. You can take out the government and wipe people out… and we have.

However, unless you want to take out the entire fucking Middle East, which maybe you do, then there is no way to get peace by killing off a country full of citizens right now. As soon as you do that, every other citizen in the region will spend a lifetime trying to find a way to seek vengeance.

You truly are arguing for a “kill em all” solution, because nothing short of that will bring peace through violence.

Now, as I’ve said before, there may come a time at which that becomes an appropriate viewpoint, but I hope not. We are nowhere near something like that at this time. I cringe at the “ends justify the means” bullshit I hear around here at times, because all it means is that whenever someone disagrees with another then any sort of depravity can be used to have your will imposed on them through force.

Why even bother pretending to have civilized societies if that is the case?

Most of their ideas haven’t changed since the 700s. Do you really think you’ll make them into secular liberals by talking to them nicely? They’ll spit in your face and laugh at your weakness. You really should learn a bit more about their culture. Their social mores are nothing like ours.

That’s not true. There are, or at least were, very many people who’s opinions are moderate. There are muslims living in peace in Canada and the USA with moderate opinions. You have lumped everyone into one mindset and determined they are all some type of evil.

As for knowing about their culture, I think you are off the mark. I am talking about a generational struggle, today’s culture is not the issue. Tomorrow’s culture is. The one that could develop if the region was not having the flames of hatred fanned so expertly.

Pick the side you want to give the country too, and nuke the other one into submission. Sunni and Shia hate each other with a passion, so whatever side is spared probably won’t hate you that much.

LOL. I guess I shouldn’t laugh. I know you are not the only person to think like this. You do realize that blowing up Iraq won’t do much about the hatred in the greater region right? You will have to blow up the entire Middle East!

However, guess what, once you’ve done that, you will have to fight a protected battle against every Muslim living in the western world. Hell, why not just round them all up and shoot them for being evil hated people of Arabic descent?

Do you even hear how fearful and panicky you sound to be jumping to these solutions. See what hatred will justify?

Why won’t it change? It changed before, it can surely change again. I’ll tell you this, if we don’t change the way we wage war, we better get used to losing. Your great-great-great grandchildren will most likely kneel on a mat five times a day to pray in the direction of mecca.

I hear a lot of fear in you Luke. News flash. The wars were won. Afghanistan and Iraq fell quickly. What happened after was a complete clusterfuck. Perhaps because the enemies we face aren’t truly represented by countries?

I don’t understand the need people have to “play by the rules” when the opposing side doesn’t. Ever played a game honestly with someone that cheats constantly? Did you ever win?

LOL. Please, you are getting desperate.

Because we haven’t yet made it clear that we won’t stand for those ideas.

Danger Will Robinson. Just what ideas do you stand for and which ones don’t you stand for? Apparently you stand for torture, killing, death, destruction, killing of civilian populations and entire regions of the planet with different viewpoints.

Is that what you stand for? Maybe you had better just kill me, because I obviously don’t stand for that. Oh, but my lack of standing for that is okay, right? Do you understand the Pandora’s box you open and how it justifies the actions being taken by the enemy?

I don’t think the problem is that they’re unaware of “our ideas.” The problem is that they know your ideas and they hate them.

LOL. Why do people assume that ideas are simple flat things that people either accept or reject? I mean, when you fight militarily, there is a battle, there is a war, things are won and lost.

Battles for ideas are no different. They aren’t going to just throw away their beliefs – how fucking naive would you have to be to think that. Do you honestly think I’m proposing we drop leaflets that say “many of us believe in Christianity and peace” or some horseshit?

Take this example: The nineteen 9/11 hijackers lived for months, and in some cases years in the US. They were not only exposed to our ideas, they lived our way of life for weeks on end. Did anyone of them think that he might want to live here with his family? Apparently not. They still boarded those planes and slammed the WTC and Pentagon.

Similarly, I think many of us have been exposed to some ideas originating from the Middle East. I think you have a complete lack of understanding concerning the ability to influence attitudes and minds. I wonder if the US military has such a simplistic view of non-physical warfare?

What more do you want to tell those people? Are you ready to convert to Islam in the name of peace?

I know you’ve seen my thread in the past about stopping the spread of propaganda and working to counter the development of hatred in the region. We are in a generational conflict, we’d better be willing to take some long term actions.

Hey, if we happen to win through military means in the mean time, no harm done, but how long should we fight ideas with bullets before we realize that ideas are fought with ideas, or information, and take the steps necessary to win the battle on that front?

If you’ll stop repeating that and give me concrete, pragmatic ways of achieving those goals, I’m all ears.

I’ve created threads on this. I am not going to detail exactly what I’d suggest, because I think that is unwise. However, there are certainly identifiable sources of indoctrination and propaganda. Start thinking and connecting dots and you’ll develop some ideas.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Which ones, which civilians, exactly? However, anyone who does denounce it gets hit with a death squad… so I don’t blame them for keeping their mouths shut.[/quote]

Start with the “hot zones.” We know where the heart of the insurgency is. Strike there.

If a new heart forms, strike there too. See how long you have to keep that up before people decide they want nothing to do with insurgents.

However, you are preaching to the choir, I’m the guy with a thread calling the population sheep waiting for peace, instead of bringing it about themselves.

Yet hundreds of those “sheep” join the insurgents and the militias to fight each other and the US occupation.

The ones that do choose to fight alongside the US let themselves be infiltrated by militia. What are we to do?

Who in the fuck is advocating such a thing? Stop being so silly. The trick is, and generally always has been, from the point of view of the west, to avoid excess or needless collateral damage.

Always? Nonsense. There isn’t much left in the form of military targets.

They don’t have supply depots you can hit; they’re supported by the population. What else can you hit?

What the hell are you talking about? The carpet bombing wasn’t meant to kill civilians, it was the best they could do at the time with the technology they had. They were going after factories and other targets of opportunity and civilians were caught in the crossfire.

Yes and that destroys morale. An army, whether it’d be a nationally mandated fighting force, or a rag-tag group of guerilla requires support, both material and moral. Hitting the populace, as much as we hate to do it, accomplishes both tasks.

That’s war. Where the hell do you get the idea that I’m opposed to a normally executed war where the military picks military targets and goes after them with whatever means it deems necessary to take out those targets?

You said yourself that we aren’t fighting conventional wars anymore. Why do you insist we keep on using conventional tactics?

Again, in Japan losing cities, or centers of production, spelled defeat for Japan and they knew it. The government, which cared for it’s own citizens, decided to give up. Kill everyone in Iraq and who’s going to decide to give up?

Will you stop with the “kill everyone” mantra? Strike hard at the heart of the worst insurgent group and see if support for their cause wanes.

While you do that, you can also try to “ally” yourselves with one of the “sides” in the conflict. You might convince them to only fight the other side and not your troops. Eventually, a side wins and order is restored.

I’ve never argued for turning the whole place in a glass desert and I’ve even argued vehemently against it. The goal is to show that you’re able and willing to use the big stick if you’re forced to do it.

Keep in mind that their whole culture is built on respect for power.

You think the world will be full of loving and peaceful people in two hundred years?

No, probably not. But it could be filled with more-or-less secular nations who compete with each other economically rather than militarily.

In the same way we compete with Europe or Asia (take cars, for example) we could have Middle Eastern and African nations also part of the global economy. The standard of living would be higher for everyone and wars a lot less likely.

Britain and France were at each other’s throat for thousands of years. Yet now, they’re allies. There is still competition and even dislike for one another, but there’s a lot more cooperation and honest competition than fighting.

Violence is generally a cycle. We’ll either decide to find ways to live peacefully or we’ll blow up the planet…

We can live peacefully by imposing peace. I’d rather we do it to them than to wait until they try and do it to us.

those are the eventual choices, what does it matter if it’s 100 years from now or 200 years from now (other than selfishly pushing it off as far as possible).

What’s wrong with dealing with the situation now?

No, you’ve got a civil war because a third party in the area opened up the gates of enmity between various factions in the country.

The US didn’t “open the gates” it removed a brutal dictator who kept everyone peaceful through oppression. You can step away and let them deal with it amongst themselves (probably the most likely alternative); but other players might take advantage of the situation to increase their power (Iran moving in to support the Shiites and kill all the Sunnis being a not unlikely scenario).

Why would you stop looking? There may be a way, there may not be a way, but if you don’t at least look for it, you certainly won’t find it.

You didn’t answer the question. Do you have a timetable for that solution? At one point, everyone should agree that peace won’t happen by itself. What do you do then?

Your eyes are closed except to hatred, violence and superior firepower.

The only thing I hate is that they wish to impose their way of life on the world. If they can learn to cohabit peacefully, then I’m all for live and let live. If the only way to end it, is for one side to impose it’s way on the other, I’d prefer we impose ours to them than the other way around. I’m not a big 7th century buff. Not big on prayer either.

If you had a conventional enemy, like Saddam’s military, then you could go in there and crush them. Now, all you can do is blindly kill people who may or may not be your enemy. That’s not going to bring about peace until you blow up the entire Middle East.

Like I said, you need to show them you mean business. Right now, they must be laughing their asses off watching the world’s greatest superpower bumbling around like idiots, losing hundreds of troops to car bombings and improvised snipers.

I’m not assuming anything. The only thing I’m assuming is that if someone came to Canada and dropped a bomb on my family I’d hate them. I’d probably be willing to throw away my life to get revenge.

So you’re waiting for a terrorist attack in downtown Toronto before you decide something needs to be done?

How you imagine that the region will suddenly be a bunch of happy people because you throw a lot of bullets at the populace is beyond me. The hatred will just fester until people learn not to hate each other. Bullets aren’t the way to do that.

“People learn not to hate each other” Are you serious? We’re not waging war on Sesame Street here; you’re not going to convince them to not hate us, no matter what you do. You can show them that it’s better to get along with us, even if they hate us, than to fight us.

Right now, the message we’re sending is “you can fight us and we’ll let you win.” WTF?

LOL. You think they aren’t human? You think they don’t love their families? You think they don’t want food on their tables? Of course they are similar to us, they are just consumed with hatred at the moment.

Throughout history, humans who love their families and want food on their tables have gone to war against other humans with families, tables and food. We don’t fight over our similarities, we fight over our differences.

The 19 hijackers surely had families, and I’m sure they enjoyed food at a table at some point. Do you think they were unaware of our reproductive potential or of our culinary arts?

You think we’d act any different if we were fed generations worth of propaganda inciting us to hatred and violence and supported by the leaders of our religions? Of course not, that’s what people do when they are consumed by hatred and have demonized the enemy.

Yeah, it sucks to be them. The thing is, we overthrew our Kings quite a while ago, and told our Priests to take a back seat with that religious thing. Feudal kingdom gave way to republics and democracies; religious institutions we told to stay out of science’s way and progress was achieved. Because of that, millions of people live today in what would be unthinkable luxury for any medieval peasant.

Unfortunately, a large part of the world seems opposed to progress. They want to keep their kings and their priests and their ways; worse, they see our way of life as a threat (and it is, if only because it show the possibility of a better, freer life) and they’ll use any means to put an end to it.

I’d question your level of naivety to assume this isn’t a human thing, that we aren’t all capable of the same depravities. Just look at all the justification for torture floating around these days. Hatred can justify almost anything… of course they are very similar to us, while in a very different psychological state. They are still human, still people, with the same physiology as us.

Yes, we’re all humans. That’s nice. Let’s hold hands and make a love-ring around the globe.

What the fuck has that to do with anything? Do you think it’s aliens who are strapping bombs around themselves and detonating themselves in public?

Again, you are talking about countries. People led by governments and loyal to those governments, within the countries controlled by those governments. That is not the current situation. You can take out the government and wipe people out… and we have.

It does not matter if it’s countries or governments. What’s a country, but a group of people who identify with one another within an arbitrary border?

The only difference here is that the border is alot more vague. You can still identify the groups and their leaders. You know who supports them and who are their sympathizers. It might require a different approach somewhat, but killing their leaders and wiping out support will always work.

However, unless you want to take out the entire fucking Middle East, which maybe you do, then there is no way to get peace by killing off a country full of citizens right now. As soon as you do that, every other citizen in the region will spend a lifetime trying to find a way to seek vengeance.

Maybe they’d rather try and keep you from making another mushroom cloud in their neighborhood.

Sounds like human thing to do, no?

You truly are arguing for a “kill em all” solution, because nothing short of that will bring peace through violence.

Ridiculous. History is replete with examples of peace being attained through violence. Genocides are not always involved.

Now, as I’ve said before, there may come a time at which that becomes an appropriate viewpoint, but I hope not. We are nowhere near something like that at this time. I cringe at the “ends justify the means” bullshit I hear around here at times, because all it means is that whenever someone disagrees with another then any sort of depravity can be used to have your will imposed on them through force.

You’re wrong. Look at US politics, and how vitriolic the debates can get here before the various elections. Yet, there’s no violence when the results are announced. The losers accept defeat and prepare for the next election.

There hasn’t been a war between Western countries for a long time; yet we have conflicts all the time. We just had disputes with the US over lumber and beef; we didn’t go to war over it.

That’s the goal here. We use force to take out the most radical elements. We don’t negotiate with terrorists; we don’t give in to kidnappings or beheadings. We find them, and strike them down.

When they decide they’ve had enough and would rather we’d work out our differences peacefully, then we talk.

Why even bother pretending to have civilized societies if that is the case?

We’re not at war with a civilized society. We’re at war with religious fundamentalists who won’t budge on any of their precepts. If their people eventually get fed up with them and overthrow them, that’s fine. In the mean time, letting them recruit and strengthen doesn’t seem to me to be a prudent course of action.

That’s not true. There are, or at least were, very many people who’s opinions are moderate. There are muslims living in peace in Canada and the USA with moderate opinions.

Unfortunately, they’re a very silent minority. Or worse, a very silent majority.

You also have groups who wish to impose their way of life on some of our citizens. Ontario had a court case a few years ago where Muslims wanted to be able to run their own Sharia law courts in parallel to ours.

We’re having a public debate right now in Quebec about “reasonable accommodations” about just how far we should go to accommodate cultural minorities. Some of the demands being made include modifying buildings to include prayer rooms; having only male police officers talk to some minorities, because a female authority figure insults them; demands that a YMCA cover it’s windows because there’s a synagogue next door, etc.

We’ve learned to separate religion from matters of the state; they need to do the same.

You have lumped everyone into one mindset and determined they are all some type of evil.

As for knowing about their culture, I think you are off the mark. I am talking about a generational struggle, today’s culture is not the issue. Tomorrow’s culture is. The one that could develop if the region was not having the flames of hatred fanned so expertly.

Israel was formed in 1948. We’ve had what, 3 or 4 generations since? Do you see any progress being made? The only thing we’ve taught them is that terrorism works.

LOL. I guess I shouldn’t laugh. I know you are not the only person to think like this. You do realize that blowing up Iraq won’t do much about the hatred in the greater region right? You will have to blow up the entire Middle East!

Why do you always come back with that idiotic argument. Did we have to decimate Germany down to the last German? Did we nuke Japan out of the sea before they cried uncle? Of course not. Do you think they’re so stupid that they’d prefer to all be incinerated rather that to eventually say “enough” and start real peace talks?

Then the energies of everyone could go to an actual reconstruction of Iraq and to the establishment of an actual state for Palestine.

However, guess what, once you’ve done that, you will have to fight a protected battle against every Muslim living in the western world. Hell, why not just round them all up and shoot them for being evil hated people of Arabic descent?

It’s quite probable that many Western moderate Muslim would approve, or at least understand, the need to strike at radical factions. Some of them have denounced the most barbaric acts. They just do it very timidly.

Do you even hear how fearful and panicky you sound to be jumping to these solutions. See what hatred will justify?

They’re currently dying in large numbers.

If we pull out, civil war flares up and they die in large numbers.

Whatever gets done, a lot of people will die before this thing is resolved. I simply think those deaths should bring us closer to peace; not closer to WW3 or 4.

I hear a lot of fear in you Luke. News flash. The wars were won. Afghanistan and Iraq fell quickly. What happened after was a complete clusterfuck. Perhaps because the enemies we face aren’t truly represented by countries?

What you keep referring to as “countries” were imposed by France and Britain over various tribes who where operating in the region.

You need to get over your country fetish. Just because we toppled the titular head of states doesn’t mean we’ve “won.” The various tribes are still there, and they’re still vying for power.

We can fight tribes too. We can ally ourselves with some of them (hopefully without fucking them in the ass a few years later), and we can broker peace between them.

Danger Will Robinson. Just what ideas do you stand for and which ones don’t you stand for?

Democracy, peaceful resolution of conflict; trade and commerce; international cooperation; secular governments. Stuff like that, you know.

Apparently you stand for torture, killing, death, destruction, killing of civilian populations and entire regions of the planet with different viewpoints.

Not at all. The less war and destruction, the better. What I’m arguing for, and maybe I digressed a bit, is that if you go to war, because you’ve exhausted all other resources, then go to war to win; and use the means at your disposal. Otherwise, you get clusterfucks like we’re seeing right now.

Those clusterfucks cost money, a lot of it. Lives, a lot of them and they increase hatred towards the West while decreasing the stability of the region. Basically, you’re achieving all the wrong goals.

Is that what you stand for? Maybe you had better just kill me, because I obviously don’t stand for that.

But you see, that is not how we do things here. We don’t chop off people’s hands when they steal and we don’t put do death girls who had the audacity of getting raped. We don’t do honor killings if our daughter gets pregnant before marriage.

Oh, but my lack of standing for that is okay, right? Do you understand the Pandora’s box you open and how it justifies the actions being taken by the enemy?

Like I said, if you have a better solution, let’s hear it. I’ve asked for some concrete plan, something that could be implemented. All I get is rhetoric about human brotherhood and lousy Star Wars references.

LOL. Why do people assume that ideas are simple flat things that people either accept or reject? I mean, when you fight militarily, there is a battle, there is a war, things are won and lost.

Battles for ideas are no different. They aren’t going to just throw away their beliefs – how fucking naive would you have to be to think that. Do you honestly think I’m proposing we drop leaflets that say “many of us believe in Christianity and peace” or some horseshit?

Our beliefs have changed over time. Galileo had to recant to avoid being put to death. Nowadays, even the Pope has acknowledged that evolution is “more than just a theory.”

I’m confident that they can do the same. A large part of the Muslim world appears to be stuck where Christianity was about 1000 years ago. They desperately need to reach their own Enlightenment.

Similarly, I think many of us have been exposed to some ideas originating from the Middle East.

Such as?

I think you have a complete lack of understanding concerning the ability to influence attitudes and minds. I wonder if the US military has such a simplistic view of non-physical warfare?

They do appear to have a cultural insensivity problem.

They prepared for decades to fight the soviets and suddenly, the USSR fell apart. I’m sure they’ll adapt eventually.

I know you’ve seen my thread in the past about stopping the spread of propaganda and working to counter the development of hatred in the region.

Those are all wonderful ideas. What you don’t seem to be able to grasp is that an idea is worthless if you’re not able to implement it realistically.

Look, I’ve got tons of ideas just like yours:

• We should reduce our energy consumption and end our dependance on oil.

• We should eradicate disease and hunger.

• We need to build spaceships and explore the galaxy.

We are in a generational conflict, we’d better be willing to take some long term actions.

That paragraph is a pure waste of words. It says nothing. Means nothing. Proposes nothing.

Let me try:

The current Middle Eastern conflicts signal a paradigm shift in the way wars are waged. We need to find new solution if we’re to achieve a lasting peace.

Cool no? Entirely true and vague and says exactly bupkiss.

Hey, if we happen to win through military means in the mean time, no harm done, but how long should we fight ideas with bullets before we realize that ideas are fought with ideas, or information, and take the steps necessary to win the battle on that front?

Pleas explain how you IMPLEMENT all those wonderful ideas of yours.

Hey, I just had another idea: We should build an engine to go faster than light. Who’s with me?

I’ve created threads on this. I am not going to detail exactly what I’d suggest, because I think that is unwise.

Right, right. It’s always unwise to detail how a proposed solution should be implemented.

However, there are certainly identifiable sources of indoctrination and propaganda.

Can I nuke Al-Jazeera?

Start thinking and connecting dots and you’ll develop some ideas.

Sigh.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
…
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of this.

You feel that increasing violence is a solution while I feel it is a stopgap measure and not a actual “solution”.

I feel that we are ignoring the bigger issues involved such as systems of indoctrination and propaganda, you feel they are unimportant.

I think you’ve bought into the fear and hatred a little bit much, thinking a bigger stick will solve the problem. You think I’m soft on the issue and don’t understand the concept of respect for strength.

I’d say look to your example about France and Britain to get what I’m talking about. When countries, or populations, find ways to work together they can develop a long term peace.

Instead, right now, we have our respective governments and media organizations demonizing the populations of the opposing regions. As long as that is the case there will be violence and conflict… and the hatred is extremely difficult to cure by force.

I agree that we can be forced into military conflict, but I think it is a mistake to voluntarily choose it or escalate it to the exclusion of other tactics. Force is not a cure all and it does come with it’s own set of costs and risks. Ask President Bush.

As for nuking Al-Jazeera, since it is a de-facto communication arm of the enemy, then it is a legitimate military target… but you do have to worry about strike effectiveness and widening the conflict if you use force within the boundaries of other countries.

Anyway, keep exploring the military fantasies of days gone by. As I’ve said before, they’ll only be relived if necessity pushes us in that way, that’s the reality of the situation.

Things change.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Right, right. It’s always unwise to detail how a proposed solution should be implemented.
[/quote]

I don’t think it’s wise to discuss potential clandestine tactics. If you can’t see why, that’s not my problem.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
pookie wrote:
…

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of this.

You feel that increasing violence is a solution while I feel it is a stopgap measure and not a actual “solution”.

I feel that we are ignoring the bigger issues involved such as systems of indoctrination and propaganda, you feel they are unimportant.

I think you’ve bought into the fear and hatred a little bit much, thinking a bigger stick will solve the problem. You think I’m soft on the issue and don’t understand the concept of respect for strength.

I’d say look to your example about France and Britain to get what I’m talking about. When countries, or populations, find ways to work together they can develop a long term peace.

Instead, right now, we have our respective governments and media organizations demonizing the populations of the opposing regions. As long as that is the case there will be violence and conflict… and the hatred is extremely difficult to cure by force.

I agree that we can be forced into military conflict, but I think it is a mistake to voluntarily choose it or escalate it to the exclusion of other tactics. Force is not a cure all and it does come with it’s own set of costs and risks. Ask President Bush.

As for nuking Al-Jazeera, since it is a de-facto communication arm of the enemy, then it is a legitimate military target… but you do have to worry about strike effectiveness and widening the conflict if you use force within the boundaries of other countries.

Anyway, keep exploring the military fantasies of days gone by. As I’ve said before, they’ll only be relived if necessity pushes us in that way, that’s the reality of the situation.

Things change.[/quote]

You keep making the same bad assumptions: I’m not saying that education (in regard to propaganda/disinformation) is not important. I’m saying that I don’t see any realistic way of controlling it.

We don’t control their schools, nor their newspaper or TV broadcasts. We can drop leaflets on them, but I don’t think that’ll have much impact.

Their education is mostly religious. They’re indoctrinated from the time they’re toddlers. Just look at how backwards some of the ardent Bible thumping posters we have here are. And most of them have had nothing like a lifelong indoctrination.

There was a report a few weeks ago about Afghan schools we’ve helped rebuild. A few of them had only one book for class: The Qu’ran. Do you think those graduates will be open to dialogue with other cultures? Do you think that 10 or more years of seeing the world as Us, Allah’s chosen, vs. the infidels will really make them open-minded and receptive to peaceful coexistence?

That’s why I’m asking how you actually implement your ideas. Ideas are easy: Let’s all live in peace. Implementation is a bitch. If you can’t implement an idea, it’s not going to help much, is it?

I’m all for putting off violence escalation in favor of other tactics. I’m just not hearing any other realistically implementable tactics from anyone.

And nuking Al-Jazeera, was, or course, a joke.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
pookie wrote:
Right, right. It’s always unwise to detail how a proposed solution should be implemented.

I don’t think it’s wise to discuss potential clandestine tactics. If you can’t see why, that’s not my problem.[/quote]

Yes of course, of course.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Headhunter]

An excellent and thoughtful debate, gents. I learned a good deal from reading it. Thank you!!

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It is much more normal for a man to carry a sword than push a plow.
[/quote]

On metaphysical grounds I will agree but will add that it is always dictated by necessity. There are many instances historically and culturally where war hasn’t always been necessary. Plowing would never have come to fruition if man wasn’t able to put down his sword. Economics and the will to survive have driven all wars.