What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

Palomar · 2004-05-24 09:46:53

Bill:
The fact that more Arab government do not vehemently condemn the deaths of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl tells me that we are LOSING the Psychological War and losing it badly.
*Since when do Arab governments care about NON-Arabs getting killed? I've yet to see Arab gov'ts (perhaps with the exception of Jordan) "vehemently condemning" the deaths of non-Arabs. And why would they? We're "satanic infidels," after all, who deserve to die -- to their minds.
Then it is the West vs Islam? Or all Arabs?

*I'm not an Arab, so I guess you'd have to ask ::them::

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-24 09:57:58

From Tom Friedman in Sunday's NY Times:

We're so shell-shocked, we just treat this as another day, another suicide bomb in Iraq. But we need to think about this. My rough estimate is that there have been 50 to 75 suicide bomb attacks in Iraq in the last year. So the first question I have is this: Where are all these suicide bombers coming from? How do you just get these people off the shelf?

We cannot win this militarily. This is the opinion of our top commander in Iraq, not merely mine.

I don't buy it myself, but one can plausibly argue that 37 years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank have made Palestinians so crazy that scores of them would have volunteered for suicide bombing missions over the last few years. But the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq is only a year old, and the suicide bombings started there within a few months of U.S. forces' arriving, to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's warped tyranny. So what does that mean? It means that some group or groups have the ability to recruit a large pool of people willing to kill themselves in attacks against American or Iraqi targets on short notice — and we don't have a clue how this process works.

"They hate us" strikes me as a woefully shallow answer. And unless we decide to kill a billion Muslims to focus on "they just hate us" is terribly not helpful.

Why? do they 'just hate us" and what can we do about it?

If a trial lawyer loses a jury trial and then blames the jury for being "just stupid" - - well - - that is one lousy lawyer.

The ARABS are our jury. Either we persuade them not to be psychopaths or we kill them all. If we kill them all, forget about oil for maybe 50 years. Pakistan has nukes.

We don't know who these people are — although reports suggest they are coming from Europe, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia — how the underground railroad that gets them from their local mosques to Iraq operates, how they connect up with the operating cells in Iraq and how they get wired and indoctrinated for suicide missions.

The US cannot win the War on Terror unless we accept the Europeans as equal partners.

"I don't think the P.M.D.'s are really a product of local Iraqi resentment against us," says Raymond Stock, an expert on Arabic literature and media based in Cairo. "They are mainly imported cookie-cutter killers, created by a combination of Arab mass media, certain extremist elements in Muslim culture, and some very shrewd recruiting by Al Qaeda and its ilk. When young, angry, futureless, sexually repressed people are taught that death is a permanent vacation of guilt-free pleasure, and they see it glorified in countless videos, all you need is a willing truck driver to ferry them over the border from Syria, Jordan, Turkey or Saudi Arabia and presto — a human bomb."

Where did the 9/11 hi-jackers come from? Where are the terror masterminds from? Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

That is where we must go to end terrorism. A quagmire in Iraq is counterproductive.

Hatred of Israel is fomented by leaders in our erstwhile Arab allies to prevent uprisings there.

Whoever "they" are, they seem to be getting more and more sophisticated. What's worse is that these people are utter nihilists. At least Hamas has a stated political goal of ridding Palestine of all Jews and setting up an Islamic state there. It even offers social services. The people running the suicide operations in Iraq, whether they are working independently or are just one organization, don't even claim credit, let alone make any demands. They just want to ensure that America fails to produce anything decent in Iraq and they are ready to sacrifice all Iraqis for that end.

They ARE sophisticated and we are shallow.

"They just hate us" end of discussion - - is pretty damn shallow analysis.

Extremely sophisticated nihilists, able to organize multiple suicide bombings right under our noses — for a year. It's another sign that we never had enough troops in Iraq, and have failed to train and equip a meaningful Iraqi police force to secure Iraq's borders or its interior — which is the necessary foundation for any decent outcome in Iraq.

Hubris and arrogance. Defeat radical Islam and reform the United Nations and humiliate Chirac all at once.

Too many wars, too many fronts, many bridges too far.

= = =

Take home message from the Friedman article:

last year between 50 and 75 people chose to be suicide bombers. . .

. . . Some group or groups have the ability to recruit a large pool of people willing to kill themselves in attacks against American or Iraqi targets on short notice — and we don't have a clue how this process works.

Bill White · 2004-05-24 10:08:30

Further thoughts about Israel and the United States.

Our opponents have a weapon we cannot counter. Its called the D-Bomb. Demographics. Birth rates.

Sharon and the Israelis may be morally justified in their campaign against the Palestinians. Some see his actions as controversial but I say that debate is irrelevant.

The Palestinians can make babies faster than the Israelis can kill them. Sharon's policies may work for 10 years, 15 years but what about 30 years?

= = =

Same with the United States and Islam, and China and India.

Our superpwer status is fragile. Maybe not for 10 or 20 years but after that.

And I do not want my future grandchildren living in a world where America is hated and outnumbered.

= = =

America is on trial, on trial to show the Arab world that westernization will bring a better life for the average Muslim.

America is on trial (a civil trial and we are Plaintiff) and the ARABS are the jury. Our burden is to persuade them that a western-leaning secular government is a better way to live.

This is why Abu Ghraib is a fiasco of unmeasurable proportions.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-24 10:18:38

They hate us" strikes me as a woefully shallow answer. And unless we decide to kill a billion Muslims to focus on "they just hate us" is terribly not helpful.
Why? do they 'just hate us" and what can we do about it?

We do need to understand the specifics of what motivates them, but there is a danger that in trying to 'do something about it' we simply cave into demands and signal that we'll do the same next time.

We need to be seen as powerful but reasonable. A sort of "Dragon doctrine" appropriate to a large and powerful nation resting on its riches and less than belligerent population. "Leave us alone, we'll do the same. Kick us and we'll burn your ass." We don't need to kill a billion Muslims, but we also can't allow ourselves to appear soft or harmless.

The ARABS are our jury. Either we persuade them not to be psychopaths or we kill them all.

Has anyone ever been persuaded not to be a psychopath? ???

The US cannot win the War on Terror unless we accept the Europeans as equal partners.

The Europeans have to meet us halfway. We aren't the only party being obstinate about this.

Our superpwer status is fragile. Maybe not for 10 or 20 years but after that.
And I do not want my future grandchildren living in a world where America is hated and outnumbered.

I agree. But we should all bear in mind that such an argument can easily, and perhaps more naturally, be applied to a very different approach to solving the problem.

For example, if the leash is ever taken off Israel... well, let's just say that they may well use up some of that "Holocaust" capital. When a nation, a people is faced with destruction, anything goes. I suspect that neither America nor Israel can deflect resentment and hate simply by 'being nice' now.

It's gonna get real ugly.

Bill White · 2004-05-24 10:25:32

They hate us" strikes me as a woefully shallow answer. And unless we decide to kill a billion Muslims to focus on "they just hate us" is terribly not helpful.
Why? do they 'just hate us" and what can we do about it?
We do need to understand the specifics of what motivates them, but there is a danger that in trying to 'do something about it' we simply cave into demands and signal that we'll do the same next time.
We need to be seen as powerful but reasonable. A sort of "Dragon doctrine" appropriate to a large and powerful nation resting on its riches and less than belligerent population. "Leave us alone, we'll do the same. Kick us and we'll burn your ass." We don't need to kill a billion Muslims, but we also can't allow ourselves to appear soft or harmless.
The ARABS are our jury. Either we persuade them not to be psychopaths or we kill them all.
Has anyone ever been persuaded not to be a psychopath? ???
The US cannot win the War on Terror unless we accept the Europeans as equal partners.
The Europeans have to meet us halfway. We aren't the only party being obstinate about this.
Our superpwer status is fragile. Maybe not for 10 or 20 years but after that.
And I do not want my future grandchildren living in a world where America is hated and outnumbered.
I agree. But we should all bear in mind that such an argument can easily, and perhaps more naturally, be applied to a very different approach to solving the problem.
For example, if the leash is ever taken off Israel... well, let's just say that they may well use up some of that "Holocaust" capital. When a nation, a people is faced with destruction, anything goes. I suspect that neither America nor Israel can deflect resentment and hate simply by 'being nice' now.
It's gonna get real ugly.

Where are the schools that whip up anti-West hatred? Where are these psychopaths born and bred?

The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi and Egyptian. Middel class and fairly well educated.

Unless we address that problem, everything else is beside the point.

= = =

The swamps that need draining are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

= = =

Europe meet us halfway?

The Germans told us our WMD intel was bad and we launched a full court diplomatic war.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-24 12:43:33

Where are the schools that whip up anti-West hatred? Where are these psychopaths born and bred?
The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi and Egyptian. Middel class and fairly well educated.
Unless we address that problem, everything else is beside the point.

None of those points are in dispute.

The swamps that need draining are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Indeed. And we were faced with essentially three options. Fight them directly, ask and hope that they play nice, or make an example of someone to show that we're serious. We chose number three.

The Germans told us our WMD intel was bad and we launched a full court diplomatic war.

The "diplomatic war" was not a one-sided affair, there's plenty of muddied hands all around.

It's just been brought to my attention that calls for 'perspective' regarding Abu Ghraib are now all over right-wing talk radio. Seems they're takin' Cobra's talking points.

Palomar · 2004-05-24 15:20:23

They hate us" strikes me as a woefully shallow answer. And unless we decide to kill a billion Muslims to focus on "they just hate us" is terribly not helpful.
Why? do they 'just hate us" and what can we do about it?

*I don't think anyone here is trying to make it sound as though the antagonism of radical Muslims against the U.S. is a simple, single-faceted matter.

Never underestimate the power of self-righteousness, particularly that sanctioned and encouraged by organized religion. Fundie Muslims see us as evil satanic infidels. Yet who's the richest, most powerful nation in the world? And where is Allah's blessing on them, with their dirty cities, hovels, and intermittent electricity (and I don't mean exclusive to Iraq after the war)? Their expectations of what they "should" have for being Allah's little favorites versus what they've really got (not much) must be grating on them, to say the least.

Calumny, in short.

Consider reading Ayn Rand's (oh...I know...) essays "The Age of Envy" and "The Anti-Industrial Revolution."

Certain U.S. policies (non-Israel) have no doubt provoked anger and resentment. The U.S. isn't squeaky clean, obviously. The AG prison scandal is the worst "ammunition" we could have given them, to use on us.

However, to what point do we continue trying to figure out all the reasons for why they hate us? Doomsday? Haven't we all known -- on a tiny, microscopic level -- the irascible neighbor, the hostile coworker, the jerk on the internet who you could bend over backwards until your spine breaks trying and trying to get along with and they are STILL hateful, spiteful, and just plain ornery no matter what? I've known people like that; they are no fun to have to deal with. At what point do you stop agonizing over "Did I do something to make that person/neighbor/coworker hate me so much?" and start asking "Is it me -- or is it him/her?"

Frankly, I think -nothing- we do would appease the radical fundie Muslims. And appeasement is cowardice anyway -- it's not an option. Reason or force. Unfortunately, some people seem to only know how to pick fights and the only language they seem to understand is a knuckle sandwich. I don't like it either, but that's the way some people are.

Again: All the airliner hijackings in the 1970s and 1980s...

Sometimes hatred has a definite, legitimate basis. Sometimes hatred is the unthinking mob [Machiavelli] whipped up repeatedly into a frenzy over half-truths, mis/disinformation, propoganda, religious fanaticism and mysticism, etc.

Sometimes -- probably often -- it's a combination of the two.

But I'm not a sociologist or political analyst, so...just my 2 cents' worth.

I'm not seeking to exonerate or excuse the U.S. either (I *never* have, as I'm sure all my posts have consistently indicated). We are the ones supposed to set an example, a higher moral/ethical standard. We need to do serious but sincere damage control (I believe steps have already been taken in that regard, i.e. releases of prisoners, court martials, apologies, etc.), and make ruthless self-assessment. Etc.

The only other option is to give the radical fundies everything they demand, totally and completely. To hell with that. They're not willing to meet us half-way...so now what?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-24 15:24:02

Never underestimate the power of self-righteousness,

you bet. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-05-24 15:44:06

Cindy, its far more simple. Read this quote from TomFriedman:

"They are mainly imported cookie-cutter killers, created by a combination of Arab mass media, certain extremist elements in Muslim culture, and some very shrewd recruiting by Al Qaeda and its ilk. When young, angry, futureless, sexually repressed people are taught that death is a permanent vacation of guilt-free pleasure, and they see it glorified in countless videos, all you need is a willing truck driver to ferry them over the border from Syria, Jordan, Turkey or Saudi Arabia and presto — a human bomb.""

Young, angry, futureless, sexually repressed teen age males are a volatile bunch. Our solution? Kick 'em in the teeth. So what do they have to lose by being a suicide bomber?

Leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan allow radicals to stir up anti-Israel and anti-US hostility in order to distract the masses from their poverty. They hate us because they have been taught to hate us from infancy.

Blaming the US or Israel for Arab poverty is a better message for the leadership of Egypt to spread than blaming the government of Egypt for Egyptian poverty. Problem is, some well educated middle & upper class Muslims (like bin Laden) actually believed the propaganda and tried to do something about it.

= = =

Jon Stewart nailed it a few weeks ago when Abu Ghraib story broke and Nick berg was murdered.

He said: "Okay guys you win, you can out psychopath us"

clark · 2004-05-24 15:46:54

Problem is, some well educated middle & upper class Muslims (like bin Laden) actually believed the propaganda and tried to do something about it.

Believe it? Nooooooooooo.
Use it? You betcha!

If there was no god, man would have to invent him... now who said that? :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-05-24 15:48:38

Problem is, some well educated middle & upper class Muslims (like bin Laden) actually believed the propaganda and tried to do something about it.
Believe it? Nooooooooooo.
Use it? You betcha!
If there was no god, man would have to invent him... now who said that? :laugh:

The September 11th hi-jackers were not uneducated, impoverished people.

clark · 2004-05-24 15:50:55

They were impoverished in an entirely different manner.

I know some pretty smart Christian fundamentalists too. Besides, most of them were lied to anyway. Not all of them thought that they were going to fly the plane into a building.

Alt2War · 2004-05-24 16:02:25

Reports are coming out that Akmhed Chalibi's Intelligence arm of the Iraqi National Congress is in actuality a front organization for Iranian Intelligence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/ … 8637.shtml

Senior U.S. officials have told 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl that they have evidence Chalabi has been passing highly classified U.S. intelligence to Iran. The evidence shows that Chalabi personally gave Iranian intelligence officers information so sensitive that if revealed it could, quote, "get Americans killed." The evidence is said to be "rock solid."
On Friday, Stahl reported that senior intelligence officials stress the information Ahmad Chalibi is alleged to have passed on to Iran is of such a seriously sensitive nature, the result of full disclosure could be highly damaging to U.S. security. The information involves secrets that were held by only a handful of very senior U.S. officials, says Stahl.
Meanwhile, Stahl reports that "grave concerns" about the true nature of Chalabi's relationship with Iran started after the U.S. obtained "undeniable intelligence" that Chalabi met with a senior Iranian intelligence, a "nefarious figure from the dark side of the regime - an individual with a direct hand in covert operations directed against the United States."

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY reccomend anyone interested in the Iraq War to watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … ows/truth/

Chalibi played the US like a puppet. Understanding his story and those in the US Defense Departments relationship with him is the key to understanding the true mechanations that led this country to war.

clark · 2004-05-24 16:16:45

Oh the irony of it all! :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/24/priso … ml]Lawyers for accused soldier want confession tossed

One of England's civilian lawyers, Rose Mary Zapor, said Army agents had violated England's rights by questioning her after she had asked for an attorney. Zapor said England's legal team would seek to have the confessions thrown out.
"She had invoked her right to counsel, and those statements are illegal. In a civilian court, those would be immediately suppressed," Zapor told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Monday. Defendants in military courts have the same rights to lawyers that criminal defendants have in civilian courts.

[sigh]

Alt2War · 2004-05-24 16:29:58

They hate us" strikes me as a woefully shallow answer. And unless we decide to kill a billion Muslims to focus on "they just hate us" is terribly not helpful.
Why? do they 'just hate us" and what can we do about it?
*I don't think anyone here is trying to make it sound as though the antagonism of radical Muslims against the U.S. is a simple, single-faceted matter.
Never underestimate the power of self-righteousness, particularly that sanctioned and encouraged by organized religion. Fundie Muslims see us as evil satanic infidels. Yet who's the richest, most powerful nation in the world? And where is Allah's blessing on them, with their dirty cities, hovels, and intermittent electricity (and I don't mean exclusive to Iraq after the war)? Their expectations of what they "should" have for being Allah's little favorites versus what they've really got (not much) must be grating on them, to say the least.
Calumny, in short.
Consider reading Ayn Rand's (oh...I know...) essays "The Age of Envy" and "The Anti-Industrial Revolution."
Certain U.S. policies (non-Israel) have no doubt provoked anger and resentment. The U.S. isn't squeaky clean, obviously. The AG prison scandal is the worst "ammunition" we could have given them, to use on us.
However, to what point do we continue trying to figure out all the reasons for why they hate us? Doomsday? Haven't we all known -- on a tiny, microscopic level -- the irascible neighbor, the hostile coworker, the jerk on the internet who you could bend over backwards until your spine breaks trying and trying to get along with and they are STILL hateful, spiteful, and just plain ornery no matter what? I've known people like that; they are no fun to have to deal with. At what point do you stop agonizing over "Did I do something to make that person/neighbor/coworker hate me so much?" and start asking "Is it me -- or is it him/her?"
Frankly, I think -nothing- we do would appease the radical fundie Muslims. And appeasement is cowardice anyway -- it's not an option. Reason or force. Unfortunately, some people seem to only know how to pick fights and the only language they seem to understand is a knuckle sandwich. I don't like it either, but that's the way some people are.
Again: All the airliner hijackings in the 1970s and 1980s...
Sometimes hatred has a definite, legitimate basis. Sometimes hatred is the unthinking mob [Machiavelli] whipped up repeatedly into a frenzy over half-truths, mis/disinformation, propoganda, religious fanaticism and mysticism, etc.
Sometimes -- probably often -- it's a combination of the two.
But I'm not a sociologist or political analyst, so...just my 2 cents' worth.
I'm not seeking to exonerate or excuse the U.S. either (I *never* have, as I'm sure all my posts have consistently indicated). We are the ones supposed to set an example, a higher moral/ethical standard. We need to do serious but sincere damage control (I believe steps have already been taken in that regard, i.e. releases of prisoners, court martials, apologies, etc.), and make ruthless self-assessment. Etc.
The only other option is to give the radical fundies everything they demand, totally and completely. To hell with that. They're not willing to meet us half-way...so now what?
--Cindy

It is this exact sort of day and night, black or white ideology that got us into this mess.

Are options are not only a: total submission or b: total war.

There are times for such extreme measures, but we must understand that those extreme measures are only for extreme times.

When our only answer for any given problem is either total war or submission, we need to get a new set of decision makers and problem solvers.

We seemed to have forgotten as a nation the true cost of warfare. We, in our overstuffed couches stuffing down super sized adult happy meals are too far removed from the price in blood and tears our bombs and tanks take on innocents in our overseas adventures.

It should come as NO suprise that there were atrocities committed in an understaffed prison in Iraq. We will over time find that this was just the tip of the iceberg. All wars are bloody, unjust and disgusting. There is no such thing as a clean war.

When you make killers out of young men, and place them in a world full of individuals with the intent to harm and kill them, it is inevidable that some will turn into monsters.

I for one am not quick to judge them as I do not know what I would do if I were in the same situation, and I am glad that there are others willing to bear that burden for me.

But to be suprised and shocked that there are atrocities commited duing warfare, which itself is an atrocity, is just more evidence that our nations moral compass had gone off kilter.

Alt2War · 2004-05-24 16:44:44

But I really don't give a flying fistful of dung that some terrorist is humiliated. Scaring the crap out of a detainee with a dog? No problem with that.

90% of those imprisoned were released and never charged with a crime.

Are you perhaps to quck to judge every arab as a terrorist?

Euler · 2004-05-24 17:07:47

The swamps that need draining are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Indeed. And we were faced with essentially three options. Fight them directly, ask and hope that they play nice, or make an example of someone to show that we're serious. We chose number three.

The governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are already some of our most important allies in the region. Attacking them would be completely pointless. Overthrowing their governments would be worse than useless. This is not a problem that can be solved just by using military force.

Palomar · 2004-05-24 17:15:06

They hate us" strikes me as a woefully shallow answer. And unless we decide to kill a billion Muslims to focus on "they just hate us" is terribly not helpful.
Why? do they 'just hate us" and what can we do about it?
*I don't think anyone here is trying to make it sound as though the antagonism of radical Muslims against the U.S. is a simple, single-faceted matter.
Never underestimate the power of self-righteousness, particularly that sanctioned and encouraged by organized religion. Fundie Muslims see us as evil satanic infidels. Yet who's the richest, most powerful nation in the world? And where is Allah's blessing on them, with their dirty cities, hovels, and intermittent electricity (and I don't mean exclusive to Iraq after the war)? Their expectations of what they "should" have for being Allah's little favorites versus what they've really got (not much) must be grating on them, to say the least.
Calumny, in short.
Consider reading Ayn Rand's (oh...I know...) essays "The Age of Envy" and "The Anti-Industrial Revolution."
Certain U.S. policies (non-Israel) have no doubt provoked anger and resentment. The U.S. isn't squeaky clean, obviously. The AG prison scandal is the worst "ammunition" we could have given them, to use on us.
However, to what point do we continue trying to figure out all the reasons for why they hate us? Doomsday? Haven't we all known -- on a tiny, microscopic level -- the irascible neighbor, the hostile coworker, the jerk on the internet who you could bend over backwards until your spine breaks trying and trying to get along with and they are STILL hateful, spiteful, and just plain ornery no matter what? I've known people like that; they are no fun to have to deal with. At what point do you stop agonizing over "Did I do something to make that person/neighbor/coworker hate me so much?" and start asking "Is it me -- or is it him/her?"
Frankly, I think -nothing- we do would appease the radical fundie Muslims. And appeasement is cowardice anyway -- it's not an option. Reason or force. Unfortunately, some people seem to only know how to pick fights and the only language they seem to understand is a knuckle sandwich. I don't like it either, but that's the way some people are.
Again: All the airliner hijackings in the 1970s and 1980s...
Sometimes hatred has a definite, legitimate basis. Sometimes hatred is the unthinking mob [Machiavelli] whipped up repeatedly into a frenzy over half-truths, mis/disinformation, propoganda, religious fanaticism and mysticism, etc.
Sometimes -- probably often -- it's a combination of the two.
But I'm not a sociologist or political analyst, so...just my 2 cents' worth.
I'm not seeking to exonerate or excuse the U.S. either (I *never* have, as I'm sure all my posts have consistently indicated). We are the ones supposed to set an example, a higher moral/ethical standard. We need to do serious but sincere damage control (I believe steps have already been taken in that regard, i.e. releases of prisoners, court martials, apologies, etc.), and make ruthless self-assessment. Etc.
The only other option is to give the radical fundies everything they demand, totally and completely. To hell with that. They're not willing to meet us half-way...so now what?
--Cindy
It is this exact sort of day and night, black or white ideology that got us into this mess.
Are options are not only a: total submission or b: total war.

*Alt2War, I think you need to re-read my post. Either I'm not making myself clear enough or you're selling me short. I don't believe I'm so "black and white/cut and dry."

Obviously, since I mentioned the *3rd* alternative -- attempts at compromise and meeting half-way. ::edit:: Which they seem UNwilling to do...hence the question "now what?"

There are many facets to this complex, complicated problem. I try my darnedest to hash it all out as fairly as possible.

You, on the other hand, often sound like a canned recording complete with a generous sprinkling of pre-fab platitudes. :-\

Try some original (your own) thinking for a change, instead of simply tapping out left-wing (stuck recording) rhetoric?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-24 17:28:49

:laugh:

Try some original (your own) thinking for a change, instead of simply tapping out left-wing (stuck recording) rhetoric?

what a day. my sides are splitting.

I'm still stuck trying to figure out how that is a question.

Alt2War · 2004-05-24 17:40:18

....
Frankly, I think -nothing- we do would appease the radical fundie Muslims. And appeasement is cowardice anyway -- it's not an option. Reason or force. Unfortunately, some people seem to only know how to pick fights and the only language they seem to understand is a knuckle sandwich. I don't like it either, but that's the way some people are.
....
The only other option is to give the radical fundies everything they demand, totally and completely. To hell with that. They're not willing to meet us half-way...so now what?
--Cindy
It is this exact sort of day and night, black or white ideology that got us into this mess.
Are options are not only a: total submission or b: total war.
*Alt2War, I think you need to re-read my post. Either I'm not making myself clear enough or you're selling me short. I don't believe I'm so "black and white/cut and dry."
Obviously, since I mentioned the *3rd* alternative -- attempts at compromise and meeting half-way. ::edit:: Which they seem UNwilling to do...hence the question "now what?"
There are many facets to this complex, complicated problem. I try my darnedest to hash it all out as fairly as possible.
You, on the other hand, often sound like a canned recording complete with a generous sprinkling of pre-fab platitudes. :-\
Try some original (your own) thinking for a change, instead of simply tapping out left-wing (stuck recording) rhetoric?
--Cindy

Sticks and stones Cindy.

What I got out of your post, and perhaps I misread you, was that Terrorists only understand violence, and the only way to route them out is through volence.

As for my Independance of Thought, I was here on this board a year ago bringing up the very issues you all now come to realize are the truth, but then scoffed as radical nonsense.

Until very reciently, my point of view had no voice in the mainstream media, and I was forced to search foreign news sources to find actual news.

I may sound canned, but at least I am consitent.

Warfare is only an answer when all other alternatives have been exhausted, and even then the cost should be weighed towards the reward with grave sincerity.

The idea that we are attempting to fight a meaningful war on Terrorism, and that in that war among our greatest allies are Saudi Arabia and Packistan is just ludicrious. The cognitive dissodence required to accept such nonsense is astounding.

Obviously there are many parts to the Common Wisdom approach to this issue that are flawed. A new approach to understanding this issue is required.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-24 18:04:56

It is this exact sort of day and night, black or white ideology that got us into this mess.
Are options are not only a: total submission or b: total war.

Alt, no one is seriously suggesting "total war" at this point. A few of us have discussed the possibility that it may occur, but no one wants it. The sort of (often) precise, limited engagements we are fighting are a far cry from "total war."

We seemed to have forgotten as a nation the true cost of warfare. We, in our overstuffed couches stuffing down super sized adult happy meals are too far removed from the price in blood and tears our bombs and tanks take on innocents in our overseas adventures.

Yes, we're soft. We've forgotten how hard and terrible war is. And some of us have forgotten that sometimes the alternative is worse.

Quote
Quote
The swamps that need draining are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Indeed. And we were faced with essentially three options. Fight them directly, ask and hope that they play nice, or make an example of someone to show that we're serious. We chose number three.

The governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are already some of our most important allies in the region. Attacking them would be completely pointless. Overthrowing their governments would be worse than useless. This is not a problem that can be solved just by using military force.

Hence the reasoning behind option three. We send a message to our enemies and less-than-enthusiastic 'allies' without really rocking the boat too much in the theatre in which we have to fight. We put the ball in their court, they can't legitimately claim "defense" if they turn on us openly. There isn't a simple military solution, but military force is part of the solution.

Warfare is only an answer when all other alternatives have been exhausted, and even then the cost should be weighed towards the reward with grave sincerity.

Yes, we have gravely weighed the costs. And all other options have been exhausted. Even if one argues that Iraq was unnecessary (which a case could be made for) we'd have to fight somewhere else. It wasn't going to end in Afghanistan, deep down we all knew that. We are engaged in a fight with radical Islam and they will accept nothing less than a fight to the death. It's a been a long time coming and we should have dealt with it better, a long time ago. But things are as they are, and they could be a whole lot worse.

The idea that we are attempting to fight a meaningful war on Terrorism, and that in that war among our greatest allies are Saudi Arabia and Packistan is just ludicrious. The cognitive dissodence required to accept such nonsense is astounding.

I agree, anyone who believes that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia truly, firmly support us against Islamic terrorism is living in a fantasy. But are you suggesting we take them on directly?

The situation needs to be finessed. Carrot and stick. Unless we suddenly feel like "Total War."

DonPanic · 2004-05-24 18:38:11

LO

So terrorism is okay if it's against Israel ?

To my eyes, each attack against civilians is terrorism,
when Israeli soldiers in occupied territories are blasted by an human bomb, this is self defense.
Do you deny to one people the right to rule his homeland his own and to revolt against foreign military pressure ?

We don't know that facts.

The most shocking photos were not to be released up to avoid endangering the troopers... that's supposed to be worse than any ethic minded US citizen can expect, weaken war effort support and feed Iraqis' rage

If we just leave, Iraq will not be free.

(Should I want to keep occupation for long, this is exactly what I would say...)
If Iraqis see you as an occupier, they will not be free, either.
Logic trap. That may lead to enlisement.

The situation needs to be finessed. Carrot and stick. Unless we suddenly feel like "Total War."

Aye aye Dr. Strangelove !
Do you advertise on your possible release of total barbarity ?
Remember the name of the last german chancellor to support "Total War" ?

Since when do Arab governments care about NON-Arabs getting killed? I've yet to see Arab gov'ts (perhaps with the exception of Jordan) "vehemently condemning" the deaths of non-Arabs. And why would they? We're "satanic infidels," after all, who deserve to die -- to their minds.

Please, don't generalise this way, liberal muslim Arabs too are targets for terrorists.
Much less than one Arab out of 10000 may become a terrorist.
By the way, latest Arab Summit condemned all terrorists acts, quite late, but did.
In the jordanian streets, peoples don't say any better about USA than in Syria, mainly hostile words.

Palomar · 2004-05-24 19:54:42

Sticks and stones Cindy.

*Fair enough.

What I got out of your post, and perhaps I misread you, was that Terrorists only understand violence, and the only way to route them out is through volence.

*You misread me or I didn't make myself clear enough.

::edit:: Some people do -seem- only to "speak" and "understand" the language of violence (again, unfortunate and **I wish it were otherwise**). Definitely, NON-violent options to try and resolve conflict should be pursued first -- that 3rd option I spoke of. But again...if they're not willing to meet the other party halfway, what then? It's a legitimate question.

As for my Independance of Thought, I was here on this board a year ago bringing up the very issues you all now come to realize are the truth, but then scoffed as radical nonsense.

*Well, where I'm concerned, you're incorrect on both counts. And with the exception of today and one post wherein I questioned you a week or two ago, I've not previously "scoffed" at your posts in any respect (as radical nonsense or other).

I may sound canned, but at least I am consitent.

*Yes, you seem consistent. I feel I too am consistent (and complex).

Warfare is only an answer when all other alternatives have been exhausted, and even then the cost should be weighed towards the reward with grave sincerity.

*Agreed. I've never suggested otherwise. I certainly don't expect anyone to remember the finer points of my opinions, but I have consistently questioned the necessity of the Iraqi war from the get-go. I definitely do *not* see the issue as black/white - cut/dry. It's multifaceted and complex.

Maybe I'm not as clear (to others) as I'd like to be when discussing matters such as these.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-25 04:56:18

Hence the reasoning behind option three. We send a message to our enemies and less-than-enthusiastic 'allies' without really rocking the boat too much in the theatre in which we have to fight. We put the ball in their court, they can't legitimately claim "defense" if they turn on us openly. There isn't a simple military solution, but military force is part of the solution.

Yes, what message are we sending? A message that we will shy away from the root of the problem.

Euler is correct as well, invasion of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. . . will cause far more harm than good.

Solution? Remove Saddam and create an Iraqi government that the vast majority of Arabs accept as a good thing.

Which comes back to my earlier point:

The Arabs are OUR JURY.

Unless the Arabs approve of what we are doing in Iraq, what we are doing in Iraq is worse than useless.

= = =

My problem with Abu Ghraib and our reaction is well expressed with this:

(On Abu Ghraib) the law will read "harsh to the small, soft for the great".
That is Bush's own maxim - as he tonight said that he would permit the entire blame for Abu Ghraib to fall on a few low ranking servicemen and women, while the officers that ordered and planned the torture and war crimes there will be let off without penalty.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-25 06:07:25

Quote
The situation needs to be finessed. Carrot and stick. Unless we suddenly feel like "Total War."
Aye aye Dr. Strangelove !
Do you advertise on your possible release of total barbarity ?
Remember the name of the last german chancellor to support "Total War" ?

Read a few posts back for the context. I was not advocating "Total War" but correcting Alt's misuse of the term.

when Israeli soldiers in occupied territories are blasted by an human bomb, this is self defense.

:hm:

Do you deny to one people the right to rule his homeland his own and to revolt against foreign military pressure ?

With regards to Israel/Palestine, who's 'homeland' it is is largely a question of how far back one chooses to look.

Maybe I'm not as clear (to others) as I'd like to be when discussing matters such as these.

On the contrary, you've been quite clear Cindy. Unfortunately there are some who like to oversimplify matters and attack those who pose legitimate questions.

The Arabs are OUR JURY.

Okay, we'll run with this analogy. The jury is composed of Arabs, but not all the Arabs. The defendents are also Arabs. And there's plenty of Arab suspects waiting for trial.

The prosecution (US) has made mistakes, but we're still in opening arguments.

My problem with Abu Ghraib and our reaction is well expressed with this:
Quote
(On Abu Ghraib) the law will read "harsh to the small, soft for the great".
That is Bush's own maxim - as he tonight said that he would permit the entire blame for Abu Ghraib to fall on a few low ranking servicemen and women, while the officers that ordered and planned the torture and war crimes there will be let off without penalty.

Assuming higher level officers were involved. Don't get me wrong, I believe this goes up the chain. How far I can't say, and those involved should be punished. But so far I have seen photographs of a few "low ranking servicemen and women" laughing and abusing prisoners... and no concrete evidence to implicate anyone higher up. Doesn't mean it isn't out there and I'll gladly look it over, but we can't go casting blame up the line based solely on our belief that these 'grunts' couldn't come up with this on their own. Prove specific CIA personell ordered it, prove the division commander knew and condoned it, prove Rumsfeld approved it. Otherwise, there's no basis for further action.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-05-24 09:46:53

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#52 2004-05-24 09:57:58

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#53 2004-05-24 10:08:30

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#54 2004-05-24 10:18:38

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#55 2004-05-24 10:25:32

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#56 2004-05-24 12:43:33

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#57 2004-05-24 15:20:23

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#58 2004-05-24 15:24:02

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#59 2004-05-24 15:44:06

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#60 2004-05-24 15:46:54

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#61 2004-05-24 15:48:38

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#62 2004-05-24 15:50:55

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#63 2004-05-24 16:02:25

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#64 2004-05-24 16:16:45

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#65 2004-05-24 16:29:58

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#66 2004-05-24 16:44:44

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#67 2004-05-24 17:07:47

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#68 2004-05-24 17:15:06

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#69 2004-05-24 17:28:49

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#70 2004-05-24 17:40:18

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#71 2004-05-24 18:04:56

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#72 2004-05-24 18:38:11

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#73 2004-05-24 19:54:42

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#74 2004-05-25 04:56:18

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#75 2004-05-25 06:07:25

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

Board footer