Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

BWhite · 2004-11-05 07:48:16

For those who say the problem is:

"They hate" and we do not, explain the relevance of this http://www.thegag.com/jw-0139.html]item.

If you do not "get it" I cannot possibly explain.

= = =

Now, merge this with Drake's equation and Carl Sagan's legendary "billions and billions" of stars.

Billions of intelligent species spread across the cosmos, as they climb the evolutionary ladder (okay an anthropomorphic metaphor, but hey) will sooner or latter face the challenge of the Chinese finger puzzle.

Those that pass the test survive and become space-faring. Others species cannot stop pulling.

What happens when both people pull too hard on the puzzle?

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 07:56:18

:laugh:

While not really being suggestive of a strategy, the comparison has some merit.

On the other hand, if you pull hard enough you can break those things.

BWhite · 2004-11-05 08:06:18

:laugh:
On the other hand, if you pull hard enough you can break those things.

Exactly.

"ALL" fall down. I had a dream once. . .

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 08:17:23

Exactly.
"ALL" fall down. I had a dream once. . .

Just for the sake of argument, sometimes (albeit rarely) it makes sense to fall on your ass if you know you can get up before the other guy. It's all a question of scale really, how long are we as a civilization willing to take in "passing the test"? Dark ages, or intermissions? All a matter of scale.

Not that I'm saying we should consider bringing civilization down around us to get rid of a few terrorists, just musing on a "dream" of my own . . .

Palomar · 2004-11-05 08:20:56

*Rescind comments.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 08:52:13

Further musings: Bill's finger-puzzle analogy carries the implication that unless we handle our conflicts well that human civilization will "fall down". This in turn carries the implication that "human civilization" exists, as opposed to human civilizations, each developed independently then thrust together by advancing technology, and often into conflict. Two possible futures come into focus, one in which these various civilizations fuse into an amalgamated mass of humanity and move forward from that point. The other option involves much falling and whoever is left standing wins and can get on with expansion at its leisure.

Returning to the finger-puzzle, if you're fast enough you can knock the other guy down and remain standing yourself if instead of pulling you push.

So we can pass the "test", become a spacefaring species and still remain the creatures we are, belligerent and exceptionally good at killing things and blowing stuff up.

We can become Klingons!

BWhite · 2004-11-05 09:47:19

Further musings: Bill's finger-puzzle analogy carries the implication that unless we handle our conflicts well that human civilization will "fall down". This in turn carries the implication that "human civilization" exists, as opposed to human civilizations, each developed independently then thrust together by advancing technology, and often into conflict. Two possible futures come into focus, one in which these various civilizations fuse into an amalgamated mass of humanity and move forward from that point. The other option involves much falling and whoever is left standing wins and can get on with expansion at its leisure.

Yet won't the "winners" spawn further internal divisions amongst themselves?

In colonial New England, Puritan-ism spun off a plethora of sects many having one or two members. At the University of Chicago, one year, we had precisely FOUR communists (Spartacus Youth League) and TWO Nazis. The rest of us found it all hysterically funny.

Especialy since the two Nazis agreed to rotate being Fuhrer.

I also was an early member of the B.C.R.D.L.S. or Bourgeouis-Capitalist-Running Dog Lackey Society.

So we can pass the "test", become a spacefaring species and still remain the creatures we are, belligerent and exceptionally good at killing things and blowing stuff up.

Winning and losing depends on your level of observation.

Individual winning or team winning?

Suppose Kobe Bryant is 2 points away from winning the league scoring title. Its the last game of the season and all other games are over.

Lakers are down 1 point and must win to advance to the play-offs.

3 seconds left, and Kobe is just outside the 3 point arc but guarded closely while Shaq is wide open under the basket.

Pass to Shaq, win the game for the "team" but fail at the league scoring title?

= = =

IMHO, to argue competition is better than cooperation, or the reverse is like arguing whether the positive charge (+) or the negative charge (-) is more important for building an electronic device.

= = =

PS - - Cobra, I agree with you. Human beings will continue to kill each other and blow stuff up. Even out in space. Think how boring things would be otherwise.

Yet what percentage and how well we mix cooperation and competition amongst ourselves will determine how well we compete against those nasty aliens.

In that one Star Trek Movie, the Klingon captain summarily executes a pilot who peforms badly. Long run, its a bad policy if you want a strong professional space navy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-05 10:05:42

Yet won't the "winners" spawn further internal divisions amongst themselves?

Certainly, it's an integral part of who and what we are. It may be that humanity is incapable of forming a society without a them to contrast against.

But keeping them down can be a passable substitute.

Especialy since the two Nazis agreed to rotate being Fuhrer.

:laugh:

Winning and losing depends on your level of observation.
Individual winning or team winning?

Which is at the heart of my musings here, if we plunge humanity into a dark age only to emerge supreme in a thousand years, whether that is a triumph of the civilization in question or a profound failure is largely in the mind of the observer. It's all relative.

From a certain vantage point the fall of Rome could be seen as the end of civilzation, yet with our distance and subsequent progress it was merely a delay, perhaps even a fortunate occurence.

What we define as an acceptable time frame and what we define as "our team" can make a great deal of difference. The greatest triumph can be miniscule and the greatest catastrophe merely a minor change of course.

IMHO, to argue competition is better than cooperation, or the reverse is like arguing whether the positive charge (+) or the negative charge (-) is more important for building an electronic device.

Can't argue with that. Just sometimes it matters which way the current flows.

BWhite · 2004-11-05 10:23:26

Extinction is losing, right?

What we define as an acceptable time frame and what we define as "our team" can make a great deal of difference.

I agree. Actually this IS my point. Who or what is "our team"

Certainly, it's an integral part of who and what we are. It may be that humanity is incapable of forming a society without a them to contrast against.

Agreed! This probably is true. So we must choose who we define as "them" wisely.

bin Laden's strategy (IMHO) is to seize control over how and who the West defines as "them" - - if the War on Terror becomes a war on Islam in general, bin Laden has accomplished his objective and has infiltrated our decision making apparatus.

= = =

I recall a Star Trek episode like this. . . (original series)

Grypd · 2004-11-05 16:20:16

The question we have over here in Britain was Bin Ladens attempt to influence the USA election an attempt to make Bush lose or win. Bin Laden and his twisted supporters need an enemy to fight to continue his vision of a holy war so as to create his vision of a united islamic state.

Bush will go after Bin Laden and will continue in Iraq. This is likely to create more civilian casualties that Bin Laden can put on his sympathetic media. It will happen even in peace time will accidents happen and in the heightened tensions of Iraq this is even likelier. If an F16 fighter accidentally sprays a primary school with 20mm rounds in the US then what will happen when they are active in fighting conditions in Iraq.

But frankly we are between the rock and a hard place, we have to act in this global enviroment and we have to engage these terrorists. We (the west and developed world) are frankly too vulnerable to disruption and with our prime supplies of fuel oil from this area we must try to do something and this unfortunatly makes us vulnerable to losses. Things are to unstable in the middle east and with possible trouble in palestine with Arafat in a coma then we have to be careful that the whole middle east does not fall apart.

Palomar · 2004-11-05 19:03:14

*I agree with you mostly, Grypd.

Bin Laden and his cohorts -do- have us between a rock and a hard place.

If we act, we're in for it.

If we don't act, we're in for it.

The way to tell the bad from the good (IMO) seems to be that the bad more easily "wins" no matter what...because they fight dirty, have no scruples or values, etc. All really IS "fair" in war to them because they don't care, period. (Whereas the good is bound to some degree of honor, chivalry and ethics *because* of being the good).

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-11-06 08:23:22

Do you think, just maybe, we should have been a little more careful to assure that http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.a … DA37]4,000 shoulder fired surface to air missiles were secured and guarded by US forces?

Only several hundred shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles from the Iraqi arsenals have been turned in to American forces in a buyback program, the government officials said.

Cash for SAMs? What a world!

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-06 10:52:25

Do you think, just maybe, we should have been a little more careful to assure that 4,000 shoulder fired surface to air missiles were secured and guarded by US forces?

The problem with this argument is that no one talks about the tens if not hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives and munitions captured, guarded or destroyed by Coalition forces, only the small percentage that slips by. Iraq was and remains flooded with weapons of every sort, to expect that any invading force could secure 100% of it is being unrealisitic.

Palomar · 2004-11-06 12:52:59

*Well, so much for all the "we need to reunite this divided nation" prattle.

The newest catchphrases are "Red State Americans" and "Blue State Americans."

Yep...great attempt at UNITY there -- not.

--Cindy

::EDIT::

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … Beheadings on the rise, globally. :down:

DonPanic · 2004-11-06 15:43:42

LO

::EDIT::
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … Beheadings on the rise, globally. :down:

"It's an ideal terrorist tool," said Jonathan Stevenson, senior fellow for counterterrorism at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington. "It is a horrifying image and I would say it is disproportionately frightening."

Centuries ago, beheadings were the way to take life of Nobless.
Punishment for the common people was hanging.
For french deputies, beheading by guillotine was somehow a democratisation of an use reserved to the Gentry.

Herk

That's gore, but why is it so more impressive than a gun salvo ?

Palomar · 2004-11-06 16:09:22

Centuries ago, beheadings were the way to take life of Nobless.
Punishment for the common people was hanging.
For french deputies, beheading by guillotine was somehow a democratisation of an use reserved to the Gentry.
Herk
That's gore, but why is it so more impressive than a gun salvo ?

*Why more impressive? I'd have to say because it's a brutal hands-on form of "execution" going on here. The guillotine was a machine. These guys are cutting off heads manually -- with machetes.

The guillotine (based on my knowledge of it) was quick; one downward stroke of the blade and that was that. These beheadings, though...by hand, it must take a bit longer; the victim must thrash and scream a bit. ::shudder:: That's as far as I want to go in imaging it.

It's so brutal and must take a real cold-hearted *#()@&!_#$
to do something like that.

Pure brutality.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2004-11-06 18:24:30

The problem is that in Iraq we are fighting two types of war, on the ground it is for hearts and minds while fending off the insurgents who can cross Iraqs borders to safety if they need to but mostly hide right in site, in the general public.

But we are also fighting another war this is the one in the worlds stage. There where many countries and people who where against an invasion of Iraq and against the Bush precidency in general. These Countries are gaining support and ways to advance there own objectives by being opposed against the war and continual prescence in Iraq.

So can we win, yes, but we will suffer heavier casualties than we have taken now. The enemy is elusive and can feed from our slip ups and we will make them. The footsoldiers that we are fighting are brutal and committed. But the biggest enemy is world and public opinion. And America is likely will come out weaker at the end of this from a political point of view.

dicktice · 2004-11-06 18:52:56

Cindy: You're right, consciousness of being irreversible mutilated must be the ultimate human horror. Being eaten alive is at least natural, but purposeful what-they-are-doing is unspeakable. When this is all over, optimistically, a thorough psychological investigation must be done before the perpetrators are rehibilitated.

dicktice · 2004-11-06 19:00:04

Cindy: Your right, consciousness of being irreversible mutilated must be the ultimate horror.

DonPanic · 2004-11-07 03:09:29

LO

It's so brutal and must take a real cold-hearted *#()@&!_#$
to do something like that.
Pure brutality.
--Cindy

I don't agree, It must be the result of much hate and anger to act so wildly

The problem is that in Iraq we are fighting two types of war, on the ground it is for hearts and minds while fending off the insurgents who can cross Iraqs borders to safety if they need to but mostly hide right in site, in the general public.

Bombs in the general public wins no hearts and minds, be on coalition side with air raids as well as on terrorists side with suicide bombers

These Countries are gaining support and ways to advance there own objectives by being opposed against the war and continual prescence in Iraq.

"continual prescence in Iraq" aren't other words for "occupation" ?

So can we win, yes, but we will suffer heavier casualties than we have taken now. The enemy is elusive and can feed from our slip ups and we will make them. The footsoldiers that we are fighting are brutal and committed. But the biggest enemy is world and public opinion. And America is likely will come out weaker at the end of this from a political point of view.

It's a strange twist of mind to declare that "the biggest enemy is world and public opinion", world and public opinion don't kill

BWhite · 2004-11-07 12:37:03

Do you think, just maybe, we should have been a little more careful to assure that 4,000 shoulder fired surface to air missiles were secured and guarded by US forces?
The problem with this argument is that no one talks about the tens if not hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives and munitions captured, guarded or destroyed by Coalition forces, only the small percentage that slips by. Iraq was and remains flooded with weapons of every sort, to expect that any invading force could secure 100% of it is being unrealisitic.

Cobra, had Bush sent another 100,000 men, we could have had it both ways. Once again, Cobra, you defend the weak Roman way of doing things.

= = =

I am not angry with Bush for fighting terrorism, I am angry with Bush for fighting terrorism in a half assed way and then claiming scads of credit for it. . .

= = =

I want to WIN the "War on Terror" - - not merely fight it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-08 06:43:23

Cobra, had Bush sent another 100,000 men, we could have had it both ways. Once again, Cobra, you defend the weak Roman way of doing things.

Another 100,000 troops would not have secured every weapon or explosive compound in Iraq. Another million troops wouldn't have done it. It's not possible to capture everything with a potential military use, it just can't be done. It's a balance, more troops would allow us to search more areas and guard storage facilities more heavily, but at a cost in other matters, all in the pursuit of an impossible task. With any occupation there will be opposition, and they will acquire weapons despite our best efforts to the contrary.

On a more fundamental level, small arms aren't the problem. A country in which every man, woman and child has an AK-47 and an RPG is not a great concern if they don't want to kill us. Securing weapons from specific sites is only a side issue in dealing with the insurgency. Even if we magically clamp down every ammo dump in Iraq they'll smuggle weapons in from Syria though we can remain confident that we've done all we can, meanwhile the practical effects are virtually nil. I'd much rather search for terrorists than missiles, and that requires something a bit more refined than simply "more troops" if we are to avoid alienating the entire population.

Unless we just kill so many people that they can't resist, burn cities to the ground, seize the food supply and shoot or starve anyone that doesn't submit, depopulating the entire country if need be. Extreme even by my standards.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 08:25:16

Cobra, had Bush sent another 100,000 men, we could have had it both ways. Once again, Cobra, you defend the weak Roman way of doing things.
Another 100,000 troops would not have secured every weapon or explosive compound in Iraq. Another million troops wouldn't have done it. It's not possible to capture everything with a potential military use, it just can't be done. It's a balance, more troops would allow us to search more areas and guard storage facilities more heavily, but at a cost in other matters, all in the pursuit of an impossible task. With any occupation there will be opposition, and they will acquire weapons despite our best efforts to the contrary.
On a more fundamental level, small arms aren't the problem. A country in which every man, woman and child has an AK-47 and an RPG is not a great concern if they don't want to kill us. Securing weapons from specific sites is only a side issue in dealing with the insurgency. Even if we magically clamp down every ammo dump in Iraq they'll smuggle weapons in from Syria though we can remain confident that we've done all we can, meanwhile the practical effects are virtually nil. I'd much rather search for terrorists than missiles, and that requires something a bit more refined than simply "more troops" if we are to avoid alienating the entire population.
Unless we just kill so many people that they can't resist, burn cities to the ground, seize the food supply and shoot or starve anyone that doesn't submit, depopulating the entire country if need be. Extreme even by my standards.

Overwhelming initial force would have suppressed much of the early post-Saddam disorder. Sure, it would not have been zero but weigh the costs of having sent 100,000 more men versus the benefits of having secured substantially more of Saddam's weapons.

Suppose the historial truth is that we secured 80% of Saddam's weapons. Had we secured 95% then the terrorists would now have only 25% of the weaponry we allowed them to loot from unguarded bunkers.

And its not like the Pentagon wasn't warned (calling Gen Shineski. . .).

= = =

Going forward, how can we have confidence that similiar mistakes won't be made again?

= = =

Unless we just kill so many people that they can't resist, burn cities to the ground, seize the food supply and shoot or starve anyone that doesn't submit, depopulating the entire country if need be. Extreme even by my standards.

Allawi's strategy for Fallajuh?

Lets see, 60 days of martial law, then a election?

clark · 2004-11-08 08:59:17

Election? Ha! That went the way of the dodo.

America supports Iraqi independance and Iraqi elections. We take our orders from them, now. If the Iraqi leadership determines that Iraq is not ready for elections, who are we to argue?

The only competing force is Sistani.

Mr.E · 2004-11-09 12:52:26

No one loves armed missionaries.

Ropespeire

Even hypocrites can tell the truth.

As cobra indicated, we might have to resort to what is essentailly genocide or eugentics to sort the terrorist/innocents in the iraqi population.

My country, right or wrong is nothing;

My mother, drunk or sober requires an intervention when drunk.

Unfortantly the electorate has decided this is not the case, and there probably is no escaping the conflict.

pray for the innocents.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-05 07:48:16

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#2 2004-11-05 07:56:18

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#3 2004-11-05 08:06:18

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#4 2004-11-05 08:17:23

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#5 2004-11-05 08:20:56

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#6 2004-11-05 08:52:13

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#7 2004-11-05 09:47:19

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#8 2004-11-05 10:05:42

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#9 2004-11-05 10:23:26

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#10 2004-11-05 16:20:16

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#11 2004-11-05 19:03:14

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#12 2004-11-06 08:23:22

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#13 2004-11-06 10:52:25

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#14 2004-11-06 12:52:59

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#15 2004-11-06 15:43:42

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#16 2004-11-06 16:09:22

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#17 2004-11-06 18:24:30

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#18 2004-11-06 18:52:56

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#19 2004-11-06 19:00:04

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#20 2004-11-07 03:09:29

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#21 2004-11-07 12:37:03

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#22 2004-11-08 06:43:23

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#23 2004-11-08 08:25:16

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#24 2004-11-08 08:59:17

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

#25 2004-11-09 12:52:26

Re: Another metaphor - for the "War on Terror"

Board footer