[quote]pat36 wrote:
Since they started attacking us for no reason or made up reasons how in the flying fuck do you expect US to control whether or not more are made. Perhaps the Jedi mind trick. I’d piss on a spark plug if I thought it would help.
[/quote]
Do you believe part of the answer to the “war on terror” lies in our PR with the region we are trying to control? If the answer is a definite, “no, absolutely not,” then do you think it is possible to win a “war on terror” with force?
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Marine Drowns Saving 2 Boys Off North Carolina Beach
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/69719858/m/4260004621001 [/quote]
Whoever questioned the courage of Marines. You must have missed my praise of the good-faith of the US armed forces. Here, I’ll update you:
I think MOST soldiers do their best -under the circumstances- to avoid killing innocents. I sympathize with them being sent half the world away to risk their lives. I also don’t think ALL soldiers are criminals. However, abuses are bound to happen when an army occupies a country. And the locals are bound to resist their presence.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do we stop breeding terrorist that hate America? I am not asking how do we end terrorism in general but rather how do we keep from giving them reason to hate, in particular, the US.[/quote]
Truthfully, I don’t think we have much control over it, largely because I reject the sloppy “cause and effect” that is typically offered up to show what the root is.
But I think it is a two-step process:
Educate any would be terrorist - i.e., any observer in the Islamic world capable of “hating” America - that war and violence against the West is the gravest mistake he will ever make. Teach them first that regardless of their opinion of America, the West, etc., that war is not a romantic choice in a romantic cause - teach them that it leads to hell and misery for himself and everyone important to him.
Then after convincing them of that, they must turn inward and solve the issue. We can help to some degree - deal with them as fairly as possible in the international realm - but this is largely a self-inflicted malady that must be solved internally.
Whatever self-cure is possible in the future, nothing will happen on this front until they know that striking out is a mistake. Otherwise, the catalyst remains dormant - as long as they think they can place their responsibility on the rest of world by creating scapegoats and attacking them, they will never have that “internal conversation”.
[quote]jumper wrote:
If he did it, he should be punished and will be. How many innocent American soldiers have been killed while trying to help innocent civilians? Hopefully these insurgents will be brought to justice too. I can assure you from PERSONAL expierience, this is a rarity and I never saw it or heard of it while I was there. [/quote]
I don’t doubt that for a second. But every Iraqi knows somebody who has been either blown by a US shell, shot by a soldier or died because of a suicide bomber.
I understand that the last one is not directly your fault. It’s the responsibility of the crazies who go around slaughtering people, but for the average Iraqi who had a life under Saddam (provided he minded his own business and didn’t have political aspirations), such events didn’t take place before the invasion. Chances are therefore very high that he views your invasion as a calamity.
Add that to the “rarities” that such blatant abuses crimes constitute, and you end up with a generation of Iraqis who see you as their mortal enemies. Iraqis that have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, Al-Mahdi or any other Islamist organization. Just a regular farmer who lost everything because of the war, whose son at the university had to flee the country and whose grandson died because of an Islamist attack.
I hope you get my point. Never did I question your commitment to limit the casualities, but too much damage is being done by the war that it’s bound to alienate the Iraqis.
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I’m confident that you are smarter than that. Please don’t act stupid.
If you really need it broken down, here:
Me = Poor individual whose family member was either accidentally or intentionally killed by the actions of someone else.
dogs = loved ones, family members, or innocent bystanders wether Iraqi or American
You = You
Driver = whoever killed my dog, but has no relation whatsoever to the dogs I kill in “retaliation”. [/quote]
That’s better.
Here’s what you missed and what makes your analogy very weak: The dogs you kill in retaliation have absolutely nothing to do with the driver. They didn’t give him a car, didn’t teach him how to drive and didn’t put him in the road. Contrast with the American public (ever fading) support for the war, the fact that they voted Bush into office, and that Bush ordered its army to attack Iraq and is maintaining it there “indefinitely”.
I’m in no way suggesting retaliation against civilians is ever justifiable, but you see that the argument can be made in the case of Iraq and not in the case of your hypothetical dog.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
We don’t…simple as that. Why do you care to give them reasons NOT to hate us. They did BEFORE Bush ever came around. They hate us because we are DIFFERENT and do not follow THEIR way of life…it’s that simple.
[/quote]
For the most part this is not true. The US is hated in the Middle East largely for specific foreign policies.
Partly this is Israel, but other issues are more important. One is the destruction of the nascent Iranian democracy and the installation of a brutal puppet dictatorship. Or more recently, US support for Saddam in the pre-Gulf era, and currently the total US support for the Saudi regime, which denies it’s citizens every last human right and enforces a rigid theocracy based on a particularly warped and extreme view of Islam. It’s not a coincidence that 15 out of the 19 9/11 bombers were Saudis. And, naturally, the invasion of Iraq.
This does not make terrorism right. It’s the reason but it’s not a justification. However this idea that these people, or even the majority in the ME are against freedom, democracy, etc. is incorrect and dangerous. Many of them want the same things you do. They just don’t see the US as having supported those principles and they are horribly angry.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Lixy…the difference is that the Marine WILL BE repremanded. He will face consequences for this action. People are evil sometimes, wherever you are. The US does not condone these actions, and as a matter of FACT, the reason why we are bogged down is because we are fighting a “civilized” or “PC” war. Go back to 1945- 1950 and we’d have BLOWN everyone up and not think twice about it. [/quote]
I’m sure this one will. But my concern is that many might not get caught. You can’t possibly claim that 100% of crimes are brought to light. You can’t also say the same about the private contractors who don’t fall under any jurisdiction and are de facto above the law in Iraq.
Anyway, whatever happened in 1945-1950? If you’re referring to WWII, you missed the date. If so, how exactly is Iraq comparable to hords of Nazis and fascists and a well-oiled military machine? Here’s a clue: it’s not!
If you think this was a PC war, then how come as many as 650,000 people died? (Lancet report as of Oct. 2006) The study was even validated by Blair.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, if I understand correctly you are condoning a deterence strategy. This is an extremely dangerous stance. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the logical extension of that would be saying to kill even more to “give them a lesson”. i.e: If they don’t learn, smack them harder.
Newsflash: You can’t deter somebody willing to give his life for “a cause”!
This just in; your current strategy is making ever more people fall into the category above.
[quote]Jamougha wrote:
…and currently the total US support for the Saudi regime, which denies it’s citizens every last human right and enforces a rigid theocracy based on a particularly warped and extreme view of Islam. [/quote]
See, this is relied upon often and completely false.
The Islamists aren’t mad at the Saudi regime because they are oppressive - they are mad at the Saudi regime because they aren’t oppressive enough.
Your claim presumes that Islamists are fighting back all the while yelling for more human rights. This is patently false - they have no interest in liberal human rights. They want a harsher form of oppression and get angry at Saudi autocrats because they are apostates that have deviated from the faith.
Islamists aren’t blowing themselves up with the mission of creating a more liberal Muslim world with more rights. They want to Muslims into even thicker chains than they already suffer under.
Look at your own quote:
“…which denies it’s citizens every last human right and enforces a rigid theocracy based on a particularly warped and extreme view of Islam.”
That is exactly what Islamists want, and they think the Saudis are too soft.
Absolute hogwash - Islamists don’t have an ounce of interest in religious tolerance, gender equality, democratic government, or Westernized morality. They openly preach against it - so why in the world would you say that is what motivates them to attack?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the logical extension of that would be saying to kill even more to “give them a lesson”. i.e: If they don’t learn, smack them harder.
Newsflash: You can’t deter somebody willing to give his life for “a cause”![/quote]
Newsflash: you can deter someone if he knows that vengeance will be visited tenfold on the people and places he holds dear. Perhaps he will martyr himself - what happens when war comes to his doorstep and destroys the life and people he thinks he is protecting with his “selfless” actions?
Withdrawal and appeasement aggravates the danger - that is how totalitarian aggression works.
This just in: you haven’t been right about anything yet, why would I think you are now?
And you should know - what is going on now is not my current strategy: it is a politically correct war that tries to make war more consumer-friendly.
I should add that Jamougha’s post reflects the fatal conceit of the Left - they always romanticize who they perceive as “victims”, and then begin to ascribe attitudes, motivations, and values that line up with their romantic vision of the “oppressed”, but are not factually accurate.
The Left wants Islamists to be these noble fighters beating back imperialism in the name of advancing human rights and liberty - the classic Left-wing hero. The Islamists outrightly reject all the values the Left says they hold dear - but the Left ignores all of that and instead inform us all “well, the real reason they fight is…”
Not only is it wrong, but it is also odd - romanticizing the one group of people that stand against everything your movement is supposed to be about.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Newsflash: you can deter someone if he knows that vengeance will be visited tenfold on the people and places he holds dear. Perhaps he will martyr himself - what happens when war comes to his doorstep and destroys the life and people he thinks he is protecting with his “selfless” actions? [/quote]
So, now you’re claiming Iraqis had something to do with 9/11?
You are REALLY mistaken if you think psychotic criminals such as Al-Qaeda give a damn about anyone. You think someone who “holds people and places dear” goes around blowing people up?
But back to my question. Are you seriously suggesting that you should teach the terrorists a lesson by punishing their families? Man, you just sunk lower than ever.
What kind of an argument is that? Geez…
I, on the other hand, have plenty of people backing my assertion up. Heck, CIA officials said so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html
Care to elaborate? What would you have done? Nuke the hell out of Iraq while the people paying for your salary and for your fancy weapons are watching the massacre on the news?
You have been a relentless apologist of the war. I actually never heard you criticize Bush on Iraq and would love to hear your strategy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
So, now you’re claiming Iraqis had something to do with 9/11?[/quote]
Where do you invent these strawmen? Do they teach you nothing in Sweden?
The war in Iraq was an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11, we took inventory of the world and assessed threat points for terror. One of the big, flashing problems was Saddam’ regime, for all the aforementioned reasons.
I don’t think it worthwhile to type it all over again. You will just have to do better with memory retention in the future.
Hmm - you claims makes no sense, if all your rantings are correct.
You have said over and over and over that Islamists do what they do because of a grievance - i.e., their violence is motivated by the plight of their people.
Well then, accoridng to you, they care about their people - else they wouldn’t be doing what they are doing. This is based on your explanations.
Therefore, if they care about something - and they do, the plight of their oppressed brethren - then you have just contradicted yourself by saying they are immune to my tactics because they don’t care about anyone or anything.
So which is it? You trying to have it both ways again?
If Islamists care about the plight of their peoples as much as you advertise, then placing what they care about in the crosshairs will have an effect.
But, you have tied yourself into a knot again - nice going.
Yes - and it is only a “low level” on the spectrum of left-wing naive pacifism.
War sucks, Lixy - it is harsh and cruel. The harsher it is, the sooner it is over - ever hear that one before?
Were I you, I don’t think I would be critiqueing other people’s arguments.
Quite right - we waited far too long to eliminate Saddam. Sitting on the situation and going soft on him sent a message to rogue nations and terror elements that we - meaning the West and the international community generally - were unserious about dealing harshly with their mayhem.
I have no objection to the Iraq war - but tactically, there have been mistakes, in my view.
The primary reason I supported the war in Iraq was power projection - the world is filled with wolves, Lixy, despite your painfully naive worldview. A mighty show of force against one of them makes the others think twice about pouncing.
I don’t want radicals/terrorists/rogue nations to love us and have a big smoochfest - I want them to quake at the thought of angering us. Then, once they get past the idea, they can move on to other topics, like joining the 21st century of their own accord.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I, on the other hand, have plenty of people backing my assertion up. Heck, CIA officials said so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html
[/quote]
Isn’t that the same exact report that says pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster? I’ve seen you cite it a couple of times.
Another thing I find weird - why does Lixy use the CIA as a source of information?
When the CIA had reports that Saddam was a threat, Lixy poo-poos the report and - astoundingly - claims it was not only wrong but probably “doctored”.
But when the CIA report agrees with him, suddenly it is a credible source?
Do I get to attack the CIA’s report as “probably doctored”?
Once again, ideology driving the selection of facts, not facts first.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The war in Iraq was an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11, we took inventory of the world and assessed threat points for terror. One of the big, flashing problems was Saddam’ regime, for all the aforementioned reasons. [/quote]
So, again you think Saddam - by any account, the most secular regime in the region - is a radical Muslim. Sorry, it doesn’t fly. There were (and still are) FAR more dangerous regimes as far as radical Islam is concerned. Pakistan harbors Al-Qaeda, sells nuclear technology to other states and Saudi Arabia finances Al-Qaeda and other Extremist groups. For all those reasons, I question the real motives behind the invasion.
You have a narrow-minded approach to things. Al-Qaeda USES legitimate grievances to perpetrate their horrendous crimes. Doesn’t mean they give shit about those causes; instead, it means that as long as they exist, they are not going to have a shortage of recruits because part of their message is legitimate.
In the case of rational beings, yes. But what we’re dealing here are psycho-criminals.
I understand, but as a side effect, you’re encouraging those “rogue nations” to arm up. Is that making the world any safer as Bush’s rhetoric would have you believe?
Also, you didn’t explain how you would get public support for your “mighty show of force”. Remember, the tax-payers are the ones paying for your army and there is no way in hell, the people of the United States will condone such a murderous strategy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do we stop breeding terrorist that hate America? I am not asking how do we end terrorism in general but rather how do we keep from giving them reason to hate, in particular, the US.[/quote]
The following was taken from a post I made in a different thread:
[i]
President Bush is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”.
His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” [/i]
http://www.representativepress.org/Oil.html
There are other factors, but this is the main reason.
Dustin
[quote]lixy wrote:
So, again you think Saddam - by any account, the most secular regime in the region - is a radical Muslim. Sorry, it doesn’t fly.[/quote]
Well, sadly for you, I am not trying to make it fly. I have never asserted Saddam was a radical Islamist and I am not now. You keep inventing strawmen.
Well, that is a lie - you question the motives behind the invasion for ideological reasons, not rational ones.
Pakistan is a good example - but our relationship is different with them. You are presuming to treaty unlike cases alike. That is naive and stupid.
You have this silly notion that decision can be reduced to “who do I think is the most dangerous?” and nothing else. Not only is that debatable, but it ignores other contexts, such as practical war-waging and risk management.
After all, it is conceivable the shockwave of Iraq forces some dominoes to fall in Pakistan, so outright power isn’t necessary.
The strategic caluculus is complex, and there are no real “right” answers - but certainly your oversimplified ideological version isn’t up to the challenge in the real world.
I see you are now trying to squirm out of your error.
If what you’re saying now is true, then why are you constantly making the argument the Islamists do what they do because of our imperialism: as in your cherished…wait for it…cause and effect? You keep saying al-Qadea terrorists don’t care - but surely they must, for all these recruits that join up to fight still retain all the motivation they had when they became bona fide terrorists?
You are making an artificial distinction to try and cover your mistake - and it shows.
The majority of the time you say the terrorists are acting on legitimate grievances, but now you are trying to say that once they join up, none of those grievances exist anymore? No more cause and effect?
Laughable. You just really blew that one. If terrorists don’t care, then you have undermined your entire “cause and effect” schtick.
You keep changing your tune.
Are they psycho-criminals? Or are they oppressed people lashing out against legitimate grievances? Your answer keeps changing depending on your argument. You are looking like a fool.
You can’t have it both ways - are they nutball maniacs? Or are they victims striking out against their victimizer?
Nonsense - they are going to arm up anyway, independent of anything we do.
Who said anything about a murderous strategy?
Nations that support radical Islam are the enemy. Totalitarianism deserves to be strangled in its crib. “Public support” is needed when you make the case that America needs to be protected.
Of course, you likely think my strategy involves flying around the world and starting wars all over the place. Nope. I’d love to see the US withdraw more. The point is to wage a harder war when the time comes to fight it. I have no interest in going and seeking wars - only educating those that want war against us that our response will be hell on earth.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do we stop breeding terrorist that hate America? I am not asking how do we end terrorism in general but rather how do we keep from giving them reason to hate, in particular, the US.
The following was taken from a post I made in a different thread:
[i]
President Bush is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”.
His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” [/i]
http://www.representativepress.org/Oil.html
There are other factors, but this is the main reason.
Dustin
[/quote]
Because we are forced to deal with their shitty leadership they hate us?
I am so sick of this excuse.
We work with their dictators and we are the bad guys.
We depose their dictators and we are the bad guys.
We cut diplomatic relations with their oppressive regimes and we are still the bad guys.
The problem is obviously on their end, not ours.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Lixy…the difference is that the Marine WILL BE repremanded. He will face consequences for this action. People are evil sometimes, wherever you are. The US does not condone these actions, and as a matter of FACT, the reason why we are bogged down is because we are fighting a “civilized” or “PC” war. Go back to 1945- 1950 and we’d have BLOWN everyone up and not think twice about it.
A terrorist kills civilians and it’s praise…
[/quote]
Exactly. If those guys are found guilty, I hope they rot in jail for the rest of their miserable lives. But as long as we have terrorist sympathizers like Lixy, these extremely rare incidents of American brutality will be played over and over and completely overshadow the countless daily acts of compassion and self sacrifice displayed by American forces.
Ignore Lixy and he will go away.