How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 20 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #**286** 08-28-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

IF it were merely "my opinion", then you would be correct. But it IS a fact, so.... What were you saying?...

I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be direct. Nothing irritates me more in a conversation or a debate than someone who *******foots around the subject, afraid to say what he or she really means because it might be politically incorrect, or might hurt someone's feeling. We're all big boys and girls here. Let's act like it, shall we?....

Don't misconstrue a disagreement as an insult. I did not insult you. I never engage in name-calling on this forum, and don't intend to start.

No, it is also merely a FACT: I don't have time to tiptoe around... I say what I mean, and mean what I say.

Mike

i am direct. you are whatever you are. much much more than simply direct.

tom w

aklim · #**287** 08-28-2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Such clarity of thought and linguistic aptitude. That's what we need to win the war on terror, A man like Churchill. A real leader who didn't pull his punches. Do they exist anymore? Anyone?

That was a different time. That was a time you could openly say what you wanted. Today we have to tiptoe around someone's sensitive feelings.

pj67coll · #**288** 08-29-2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Such clarity of thought and linguistic aptitude. That's what we need to win the war on terror, A man like Churchill. A real leader who didn't pull his punches. Do they exist anymore? Anyone?

Afraid not. Now all we have are PC politicians. One thing a lot of people in this country might not notice however I think is his comment regarding the way Christianity is sheltered in the arms of science that it fought for so long. I wonder how many fundamentalists in this country would be happy with that observation.

- Peter.

peragro · #**289** 08-29-2006, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If they go to Afghanistan and Iraq to martyr themselves, I'm all for it. Let's have a recruiting campaign challenging them to conquer Iraq.

Of course they'd like to do damage here on our own soil. They really liked it an aweful lot when we were more accommodating--when they could attack us and get away with it. Now that their formal training camps are obliterated and their senior echelons are dead or hiding in the Hindu Kush mountains and unable to use satphones or modern bank transferrances, training is far less intense and more OJT, hence the decidedly unclever cats' paws who are following holy Johad for Al Queda. Al Queda can no longer recruit and train 1st class fanatics so they make do with what they can get--3rd strongers.

Let's put up some recruiting posters to get the Jihadists to kill infidels in Iraq.

B

Excellent observations all.

I would add that Al Qaida is not the only enemy. The Democrats current and upcoming focus on only Bin Laden is a sentinel example and very telling regarding their attitude to the problem at hand. It is completly reactionary and wholly discounts other radical muslim groups such as Hezbollah. It is abundently clear that they will only focus on other groups similar to Al Qaida after they have attacked us again. Despite Hezbollah having done so in the past and all of the groups stating that they intend to - just like Al Qaida did prior to World Trade Center 1 and 2.

I'm on travel this week and as a result have spent way too much time watching the news shows. Max Cleland, various democratic stratigists and Bill Maher in the last few days exemplify what I've said above. Sorry to sound overly politicized but that's just the way I see it. No Democrat who is going to be firm on ALL terrorist Islamic groups can be elected in that party now. We'll be chasing an ineffective Bin Laden in the mountains while some Iran proxy blows a whole in some American city or more likely a European city, no doubt after the 17th or 18th UN resolution condemning whatever action Iran has done lately.

soypwrd · #**290** 08-29-2006, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Such clarity of thought and linguistic aptitude. That's what we need to win the war on terror, A man like Churchill. A real leader who didn't pull his punches. Do they exist anymore? Anyone?

September 11, 2001 opened a small window for a true leader to step forth, call it like it is, and take control of the situation. With this nation in particular, and the world in general galvanized against the evils of religious fanatisism the opportunity to change the world briefly existed... and was lost. Clearly bush just didn`t have it; neither the vision to see the reality of the situation nor the balls to try something really bold. I wonder if the people of this once great nation would have had the where-with-all and the fortitude if he, or someone else, would have taken up the torch. I`d like to think so but I seriously doubt it. We`ve become a nation of the stupid, fat, and lazy with no desire to face the harsh realities of our dire prediciment, and it will cost us dearly.

raymr · #**291** 08-29-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

September 11, 2001 opened a small window for a true leader to step forth, call it like it is, and take control of the situation. With this nation in particular, and the world in general galvanized against the evils of religious fanatisism the opportunity to change the world briefly existed... and was lost. Clearly bush just didn`t have it; neither the vision to see the reality of the situation nor the balls to try something really bold. I wonder if the people of this once great nation would have had the where-with-all and the fortitude if he, or someone else, would have taken up the torch. I`d like to think so but I seriously doubt it. We`ve become a nation of the stupid, fat, and lazy with no desire to face the harsh realities of our dire prediciment, and it will cost us dearly.

So what would this true leader have done - declare war on all Muslims? Carpet bomb the whole mideast? The more you tell a mideasterner that Islamic fanatisism is bad, the more he hates you for it. We have too many conflicting interests over there - oil, the welfare of Israel, arms sales. Even the best intended actions will be tainted by these motivating factors as they have always been in the past. Our integrity there is shot and thats why we need to become more neutral regarding the mideast. No one country can go in there to straighten things out, it has to be a group effort.

Churchill had a very apt description of the problem. Did he have a solution?

aklim · #**292** 08-29-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

We have too many conflicting interests over there - oil, the welfare of Israel, arms sales.

Even the best intended actions will be tainted by these motivating factors as they have always been in the past. Our integrity there is shot and thats why we need to become more neutral regarding the mideast.

No one country can go in there to straighten things out, it has to be a group effort.

We have only one interst there. Oil. Oil runs everything. Not only for us but for those we depend on for other things.

What best intended actions? Nobody has such ideals and will carry them out. The only people who will go in and do something are those that have benifits from it hence there will be motivating factors from any side you choose. talking about neturality and integrity is great. For a boyscout campfire, that is. In the real world, they don't care about it. None of their religious leaders are neutral are they? Everyone has a side there.

Like who? Some Martian? Everyone who goes there will have some axe to grind and therefore will not be neutral. If they are neutral, they won't be involved.

soypwrd · #**293** 08-29-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

So what would this true leader have done...

1. Hunt down and kill the extremists responsible

2. Maintain the moral highground at all costs in order to insure international cooperation

3. Immediately embark on a full on shift towards alternative energy

4. Begin a national discussion on how we got into such a mess and on the best way to get out

Instead we get, "Go shopping".

aklim · #**294** 08-29-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

1. Hunt down and kill the extremists responsible

2. Maintain the moral highground at all costs in order to insure international cooperation

3. Immediately embark on a full on shift towards alternative energy

4. Begin a national discussion on how we got into such a mess and on the best way to get out

1. It will also have to include their infrastructure and everyone who aids them. Unlike many, I am less worried about the guy with the bomb vest and AK-47 than the people supporting him. Take those out and you have something. However, look at what happened in Tora Bora. We sent in a man to do a nuke's job. Why? We as a group, don't have the stones to use a nuke which would have been a huge demoralizer to the other side when we leveled the mountain, got their guy and made them wet their drawers.

2. Yeah, right. That and $0.50 might get you a can of Coke in a vending machine. Moral highground is not to be found anywheres. Hell, even the Roman Catholic church cannot take the moral highground when it comes to pedophilic priests and you want world leaders to do that? You want fries with that too?

3. OK. But it will take more than that. Energy is only one thing we get from oil. It will take basically an "alternative oil"

4. The out is simple. You find this product called "alternative oil". How to implement is is totally different. Also there must be enough quantities for everyone otherwise we get back to square 1. How we got into this mess? Does it matter? We are in it. Lets do the best we can. No Holds Barred.

mikemover · #**295** 08-29-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

T walgamuth and I are at a disadvantage in making that determination because we can't match your expertise in, well, everything in the world, but from our laymen's point of view, "destabilize" is not that far off.

I make every effort to educate myself on important issues, such as this one.

But that hardly qualifies me as an "expert".

However... It doesn't require an "expert" to see something so glaringly obvious.

If you look at the steadily escalating terrorist events in the decades leading up to 9-11-2001, it becomes obvious that the current state of affairs was inevitable. A major conflict between the fanatical ideals of radical Islam and the relative sanity of the Western world has been brewing for a long, LONG time.

And in my "expert opinion",

Bush's bungling around in Iraq MIGHT have slightly accelerated the process... But it is very short-sighted and naive to blame him for the whole mess.

The pile of $hit was already there. He was just the first world leader to step in it with both feet.

Mike

mikemover · #**296** 08-29-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i am direct. you are whatever you are. much much more than simply direct.

tom w

Hey, we're discussing heavy, heavy subjects around here. People need to check their hyper-sensitivity at the door.

If you can't take the heat.....

Mike

t walgamuth · #**297** 08-29-2006, 09:13 AM

the expert comment was sarcastic.

tom w

t walgamuth · #**298** 08-29-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Afraid not. Now all we have are PC politicians. One thing a lot of people in this country might not notice however I think is his comment regarding the way Christianity is sheltered in the arms of science that it fought for so long. I wonder how many fundamentalists in this country would be happy with that observation.

- Peter.

i might note that churchill wrote that when he was very young. well before he was into politics, i believe.

tom w

mikemover · #**299** 08-29-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

the expert comment was sarcastic.

tom w

Really?

Mike

Honus · #**300** 08-29-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...And in my "expert opinion",

Bush's bungling around in Iraq MIGHT have slightly accelerated the process...

Earlier you said that it was "completely absurd" to say that Bush's actions destabilized the ME. Now you concede that his actions might have accelerated the intensification of violence. I don't see such a huge difference between destablization and intensification of violence.

Quote:

...But it is very short-sighted and naive to blame him for the whole mess...

Who said otherwise?

Quote:

...The pile of $hit was already there. He was just the first world leader to step in it with both feet...

Right. He is the only one foolish enought to do that.