How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 24 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jlomon · #**346** 09-01-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

No it has not. Glaring example is Tora Bora. Explain to me why it is a good thing to not level it and get rid of OBL there? What did we do? Send a bunch of men in and not even our men. Great. Just great. If we had nuked it, it would have shown we were serious. Unfortuntely, the greatest enemy is not OBL but ourselves. We don't dare do what is necessary.

Nuking Tora Bora would have definitely killed OBL. But it wouldn't win the war on terror. OBL does not equal militant Islam. He is just the current poster boy for it. Killing him isn't going to stop this, and a thousand OBLs would rise from the ashes of that firestorm. We aren't fighting a man or a country, we're fighting a belief system.

Employing nuclear weapons would only serve to justify/reinforce the things that OBL preaches to his followers, namely that the US is a decadent, selfish and immoral country bent on world hegemony. It would be playing into his rhetoric. It would widen his support base all over the world, including inside the US. That would mean more money, more support, more people willing to die for the ideal that OBL represents. It would weaken or entirely remove the resolve of allied nations to partner with the US in this battle. This would be something of a phyrric (sp?) victory.

jlomon · #**347** 09-01-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I cannot imagine anybody in the USA enjoying a relationship in which we are subject to the whims of foreign dictators, princes, potentates and terrorists. Also, I cannot think that any rational person in the oil-producing countries would give a care for us if we were NOT buying their oil.

Robert Baer's " Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul For Saudi Crude" is a very interesting and shocking book that deals with this very subject. I'd highly recommend it. This book formed the basis/inspiration for the movie Syriana, which would have been terribly confusing if you hadn't read the book to understand the relationships.

aklim · #**348** 09-01-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

Nuking Tora Bora would have definitely killed OBL. But it wouldn't win the war on terror. OBL does not equal militant Islam. He is just the current poster boy for it. Killing him isn't going to stop this, and a thousand OBLs would rise from the ashes of that firestorm. We aren't fighting a man or a country, we're fighting a belief system.

Employing nuclear weapons would only serve to justify/reinforce the things that OBL preaches to his followers, namely that the US is a decadent, selfish and immoral country bent on world hegemony. It would be playing into his rhetoric. It would widen his support base all over the world, including inside the US. That would mean more money, more support, more people willing to die for the ideal that OBL represents. It would weaken or entirely remove the resolve of allied nations to partner with the US in this battle. This would be something of a phyrric (sp?) victory.

I realize that. However, having him escape is also doing the same thing. Killing him alone isn't going to stop it. I have said it myself. Currently, they view us as weak because they know we go into a fight with one arm tied behind and a weight on the other leg. Nuking them will show that we will use everything in our cupboard to make it work. Currently, that is something they know we don't have the will to. I still say we would ahve less problems if we had nuked Iran all those years ago. One nuke for every week the hostages were kept.

Yes, it reinforces it but they are so believed in it at this time, it won't matter. You think they don't already believe the rethoric? This is back to the hearts and minds game. Nobody on the otherside belives or cares about it. However, a nuke would show we are serious and may keep the savages at bay for a while longer.

raymr · #**349** 09-01-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I realize that. However, having him escape is also doing the same thing. Killing him alone isn't going to stop it. I have said it myself. Currently, they view us as weak because they know we go into a fight with one arm tied behind and a weight on the other leg. Nuking them will show that we will use everything in our cupboard to make it work. Currently, that is something they know we don't have the will to. I still say we would ahve less problems if we had nuked Iran all those years ago. One nuke for every week the hostages were kept.

Yes, it reinforces it but they are so believed in it at this time, it won't matter. You think they don't already believe the rethoric? This is back to the hearts and minds game. Nobody on the otherside belives or cares about it. However, a nuke would show we are serious and may keep the savages at bay for a while longer.

I don't think we are justified to do that until we get our own house in order. There is a difference between 'need' and 'want'. Having enough energy to keep houses warm and farm machinery running is a need. Powering 3000 pound overweight SUVs, RVs, and jet skis is a want. I'm afraid our guys are dieing over there for too much of the latter. Likewise dropping the bomb for the same reasons would be the ultimate act of our oil lust.

cmac2012 · #**350** 09-01-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I cannot imagine anybody in the USA enjoying a relationship in which we are subject to the whims of foreign dictators, princes, potentates and terrorists. Also, I cannot think that any rational person in the oil-producing countries would give a care for us if we were NOT buying their oil.

We are in this world, right now. Knowing the nature of our circumstances is the first step in doing something about it.

Were we do abandon the ME completely (except for trade), what would be the effect?

One could argue that we needn't completely abandon the ME. That is true. perhaps we could have some moderate position. What would be the effect of that?

Some o fthe nutcases over there believe with deep religious convictions, that we are the Great Satan. They believe that, not because of oil, but because of our economic power and our notions of government.

Our economic model (sort of a free enterprise system) is demonic. We charge interest. We manufacture and sell that which is haram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal), we tolerate a free expression of disgusting behavior like extra- and pre-marital sex, homosexuality, full equality of the sexes, idolatry, and atheism. Worse, our media is so pervasive that it is seducing the young Muslims from true happiness into the false happiness of lust instead of love. Plainly, the Prophet (PBUH) warned of such behaviors and as clearly prescribed a cure.

Hate to be a nit-picker, but your link returned this opening line:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Halal) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

You wrote "haram," the missing Wiki piece was for "Halal."

Other than that, some interesting stuff here but I would disagree slightly on why they believe we're the great satan (PBUH). Our economic power and notions of government would scarcely be an annoyance to them if we hadn't tried to control the governance of their country, speaking about Iran specifically, though it's true of some of the others to a lesser degree.

It's madness to expect another people to meekly go along w/ something we would fight to the death to vanquish.

cmac2012 · #**351** 09-01-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

And that role it plays is all encompassing. It`s the driving force behind our 50 year struggle to insure the flow of cheap energy. Our desire for their petroleum is what got us on their soil, what got us to tinker with their internal politics, what litterally fuels their ability to come at us. Our petrodollars go from your pocket, to the oil companies, to the Royalty which claims ownership of the Devil`s Tea, then to the radicals to fund their jihad.... follow YOUR money. Without our deadly addiction they`d be left with throwing sand and camel dung at us.

Yes, there is a cultural and idealogical difference a mile wide but the simple fact that we are ON THEIR SOIL and IN THEIR FACE with our decident culture because we need something that they are sitting on is the overriding reason for our dire prediciment. Period.

And don`t give me the stuff about if we didn`t buy it the Chineese and Indians would. They dislike the whole bloody relationship almost as much as we should and would gladly buy our alternative energy systems rather than be tied to the islamoloonies who are just as willing to bring the entire planet to the end times as see the US fall.

They are the nutcases coming at us, and we are giving them the reasons and the firearms with our deadly addiction.

What he said.

soypwrd · #**352** 09-01-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

... However, a nuke would show we are serious and may keep the savages at bay for a while longer.

A nuke thrown by either side will put an end to life as we have come to know it, bringing the world economy to a complete hault and pulling the last few shims out from an already crumbling house of cards. Those poor souls on the planet who are unlucky enough now to already have nothing will be OK. Those of us totally dependent on everybody else for every single BTU, calorie, daily junk from Wallyworld...... can kiss our asses goodbye.

Such insane bravado is just how we got into this mess, taking it to the next level is suicidal. Hope you like living like a cave man, yet without the simple tools or knowledge to survive or defend what little you might have stashed.

soypwrd · #**353** 09-01-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

... I'd rather run a line there and sell you the electricity. Constant money vs a one time deal

Why didn`t I think of that? How practicle.

aklim · #**354** 09-01-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

A nuke thrown by either side will put an end to life as we have come to know it, bringing the world economy to a complete hault and pulling the last few shims out from an already crumbling house of cards. Those poor souls on the planet who are unlucky enough now to already have nothing will be OK. Those of us totally dependent on everybody else for every single BTU, calorie, daily junk from Wallyworld...... can kiss our asses goodbye.

That is ONE possible scenario. That was of course back in the Soviet days that you might count on that. I doubt it would be the case today;.

soypwrd · #**355** 09-01-2006, 02:20 PM

That is one awfully ballsy bet you are willing to make for us all my friend. I hope you`ve got enough food and fuel stashed to share with the rest of us believers.

Were you with bush+co. and the pre-war predictions of this incursion lasting only a few months, greeting us in the streets with flowers, costing only $50mil `cause Iraqi oil was going to fund the rest, knowing just where the WMDs were, having low body counts.....

Hey, Mission Accomplished right?

jlomon · #**356** 09-01-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Yes, it reinforces it but they are so believed in it at this time, it won't matter. You think they don't already believe the rethoric? This is back to the hearts and minds game.

This is my point. If you start nuking things, all you do is guarantee militant Islam the hearts and minds of former moderates. Right now OBL and his Wahabbist buddies are still seen as being part of a lunatic fringe to many other Muslim sects who may be sympathetic to his struggle against "the Great Satan" but cannot reconcile his methods with their interpretation of Islam. You'd be driving the moderates right into his arms, which only increases the number of fronts you have to fight on.

You aren't ever going to convince hardliners (of any stripe and belief) of anything. They're dyed-in-the-wool supporters who can't be reasoned with. You want to keep the more moderate viewpoints on the sidelines instead of giving them a reason to join the party. Using a nuclear weapon would be OBL's recruiting wet dream.

aklim · #**357** 09-01-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

This is my point. If you start nuking things, all you do is guarantee militant Islam the hearts and minds of former moderates. Right now OBL and his Wahabbist buddies are still seen as being part of a lunatic fringe to many other Muslim sects who may be sympathetic to his struggle against "the Great Satan" but cannot reconcile his methods with their interpretation of Islam. You'd be driving the moderates right into his arms, which only increases the number of fronts you have to fight on.

You aren't ever going to convince hardliners (of any stripe and belief) of anything. They're dyed-in-the-wool supporters who can't be reasoned with. You want to keep the more moderate viewpoints on the sidelines instead of giving them a reason to join the party. Using a nuclear weapon would be OBL's recruiting wet dream.

Take a look at Lebanon. How did it happen? Well, the tactic was to buy themselves in. They did construction via Jihad Construction where they replaced windows and repaired houses, etc, etc, for free. Where does this money come from? The few hardliners? Doubtful. It comes from the masses of "moderates". Which means that they just don't want to get their hands dirty but support the same cause and that means they too are the hardliners. You are looking for hardliners by whether they wear a bomb vest or carry a gun. The hardliners are those, to be certain. But they are the others who support them too,

Also, with victory after victory, you call it whatever you want but items like Somalia was a victory, won't it also stoke up the so called moderates? If they are unable to reconcile his methods and his interpretation of islam, they have certainly been pretty silent about it. We have seen them get into an uproar concerning the Dutch cartoonist and it was more than a letter of protest.

soypwrd · #**358** 09-01-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Take a look at Lebanon. How did it happen? Well, the tactic was to buy themselves in. Where does this money come from?

From everyone who fills their tanks with the Devil`s Tea my friend. Follow the money trail, as presviously tracked for those asleep at the wheel.

jlomon · #**359** 09-01-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Take a look at Lebanon. How did it happen? Well, the tactic was to buy themselves in. They did construction via Jihad Construction where they replaced windows and repaired houses, etc, etc, for free. Where does this money come from? The few hardliners? Doubtful. It comes from the masses of "moderates"

You think the millions of dollars that Hezbollah will be tossing around Beirut came from passing the hat around at community centres, with the moderates tossing in a few bucks each? The money came from Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. Both of these totalitarian regimes are run by very narrow interests (a "Mullocracy" in Iran, and the Alawites in Syria) with a long history of anti-US policies. Do their country's actions reflect the will of their population at large? Probably not. Start tossing nukes around and the answer will change to "most likely".

aklim · #**360** 09-01-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

From everyone who fills their tanks with the Devil`s Tea my friend. Follow the money trail, as presviously tracked for those asleep at the wheel.

Don't forget the rest of the stuff that is oil tainted if you want to think of it that way. Your shirt, underwear, medicines, etc, etc. Don't stop at the tank.