How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 25 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**361** 09-01-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

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".

Still with the "hearts and mind" thing? It seemed to work well in Japan. People got scared and feared that they would be next because they now know what we have and have shown that we are willing to use it. Today, it is not so much of who has the best gun or knife. It is who has the strongest will. Our superior weaponary is only so good and is enough to sustain us but eventually, superior will will win out. Tossing it Tora Boar would be a good way to show them that we will take vengence on them, their wives and children and so on for a few generations. That is something that will get them to sit at attention. Don't believe it? Think about it this way. Speeding. If the fine was $10, you can bet I'll be speeding. I got busted for $75 in IA with no points. The first thought was "If I known this was that easy, I'd be doing 30 over." Lets say the fine is now $500. Well, I guess I'll be thinking about my speed a lot more than before. Lets say the cop was authorised to perform summary executions. I'll be 5 below speed limit and 10 mph whenever uncertain. If the summary executions included my family all the way to the family dog, you bet I'll take the bus.

peragro · #**362** 09-02-2006, 12:09 AM

New Enemies Demand New Thinking
The secretary of Defense clarifies and expands on what he said in his recent speeches about appeasing extremists.
By Donald H. Rumsfeld
DONALD H. RUMSFELD is the U.S. secretary of Defense.

September 1, 2006

IN THE LAST FEW DAYS I have had the opportunity to speak at the annual conventions of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. It is always a humbling experience to be in the presence of those who have served and fought for our country during some of our darkest, most trying times — when it was unclear whether our way of life would prevail.

We are again engaged in conflicts that are testing whether we believe that the defense of liberty is worth the cost. And again, there are those who disagree with the mission, who question whether it is worth the sacrifice. This is to be expected in a time of war.

Today, some think that World War II and the Cold War were black-and- white affairs: good versus evil. But there were always those who thought that we should retreat within our borders.

In an effort to avoid repeating the carnage of World War I, much of the Western world tried to appease the growing threats in Europe and Asia in the years before World War II. Those who warned against the rise of Nazism, fascism and communism were often ridiculed and ignored.

The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we have faced in the past, but its goal is similar: to impose its fanatical ideology of hatred on the rest of the world.

In speaking to our veterans, I suggested several questions to guide us during this struggle against violent extremists:

• With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?

• Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

• Can we truly afford to pretend that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems rather than fundamentally different threats requiring fundamentally different approaches?

• Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world's troubles?

These are the central questions of our time, and, as in all periods of conflict, we have no choice but to face them honestly.

The last question is particularly important, because this is the first war of the 21st century — a war that, to a great extent, will be fought in the media on a global stage. We cannot allow the terrorists' lies and myths to be repeated without question or challenge.

We also should be aware that the struggle is too important — the consequences too severe — to allow a "blame America first" mentality to overwhelm the truth that our nation, though imperfect, is a force for good in the world.

Consider that a database search of the nation's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib than of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the global war on terror.

Then there is the case of Amnesty International, a long-respected human-rights organization, which called the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our times" — a reference to the vast system of Soviet prisons and labor camps where innocent citizens were starved, tortured and murdered. The facility at Guantanamo Bay, by contrast, includes a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library (the book most requested is "Harry Potter"). The food, served in accordance with Islamic diets, costs more per detainee than the average U.S. military ration.

With examples like these prevalent in the world media, I do worry about the lack of perspective in our national dialogue — a perspective on history and the new challenges and threats that free people face today. Those who know the truth need to speak out against the myths and distortions being told about our troops and our country. My remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion conventions have generated much discussion. I encourage everyone to read what I actually said at defenselink.mil/speeches.

cmac2012 · #**363** 09-02-2006, 03:30 AM

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.

Exactly right. US hawks are under the impression we can whoop all a$$, at all times. I'm trying to think if there was another great power in the recent past, a power with the strongest military in the world by far, a country that thought it could identify legitimate threats and take them out and prevail every time.

BTW, recent past is last 100 years as far as I'm concerned.

Oh yeah, there was one country like that. They ended up spreading themselves too thin and pissing off about 80 - 90% of the rest of the world such that all those "weaker" nations joined together and put a stop to that crap.

It'll never happen here though...

cmac2012 · #**364** 09-02-2006, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

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.

Speak for yourself. I avoid polyester like the plague. I also avoid cliches like the plague, normally.

My medicine don't come from no petroleum and if I find that it does, I'll change medicine.

aklim · #**365** 09-02-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Speak for yourself. I avoid polyester like the plague. I also avoid cliches like the plague, normally.

My medicine don't come from no petroleum and if I find that it does, I'll change medicine.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761576221

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/uses/vitamins.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/types/fossil/petrol.html

to name a few

peragro · #**366** 09-02-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Exactly right. US hawks are under the impression we can whoop all a$$, at all times. I'm trying to think if there was another great power in the recent past, a power with the strongest military in the world by far, a country that thought it could identify legitimate threats and take them out and prevail every time.

BTW, recent past is last 100 years as far as I'm concerned.

Oh yeah, there was one country like that. They ended up spreading themselves too thin and pissing off about 80 - 90% of the rest of the world such that all those "weaker" nations joined together and put a stop to that crap.

It'll never happen here though...

Not that I agree at all with your second sentence, but I can't make heads nor tails of what it is you are referring too. You're being waaaaaaaayyyyyy to vague.

BTW, why the artificial limit of 100 years?

cmac2012 · #**367** 09-03-2006, 03:39 AM

100 years was an arbitrary measure. 200 years could be recent past. It certainly is in geological terms.

Good Lord, density man, I'm talking about Schicklegruber and boys. Oh may ghod, the Jews were an unacceptable threat to their way of life -- not to mention gypsies and gays.

Now we've got a new crop of non-Jewish Semites to fear and loath -- we now have hippies and we still have gays -- all of whom pose unacceptable risks to our God approved way of life.

If the same neo-cons who pushed Operation Iraqi Liberation were to actually get their way on Iran, the new "real" threat, we'll gain an appreciation of the meaning of "stretched thin."

soypwrd · #**368** 09-03-2006, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

New Enemies Demand New Thinking
The secretary of Defense clarifies and expands on what he said in his recent speeches about appeasing extremists.
By Donald H. Rumsfeld
DONALD H. RUMSFELD is the U.S. secretary of Defense.

Sure wish I could get my hands on the quotes from the author on how much of a cakewalk this war was going to be, exactly where the WMDs were going to be found, blah, blah, blah....

Oh yea, we need to listen to this guy more often huh?

peragro · #**369** 09-03-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

Sure wish I could get my hands on the quotes from the author on how much of a cakewalk this war was going to be, exactly where the WMDs were going to be found, blah, blah, blah....

Oh yea, we need to listen to this guy more often huh?

So what is it that you dispute in the current article?

peragro · #**370** 09-03-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

100 years was an arbitrary measure. 200 years could be recent past. It certainly is in geological terms.

Good Lord, density man, I'm talking about Schicklegruber and boys. Oh may ghod, the Jews were an unacceptable threat to their way of life -- not to mention gypsies and gays.

Now we've got a new crop of non-Jewish Semites to fear and loath -- we now have hippies and we still have gays -- all of whom pose unacceptable risks to our God approved way of life.

If the same neo-cons who pushed Operation Iraqi Liberation were to actually get their way on Iran, the new "real" threat, we'll gain an appreciation of the meaning of "stretched thin."

:wtf:

soypwrd · #**371** 09-03-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

So what is it that you dispute in the current article?

I buy the first three bullets, the rest is the same `ole "with us, agin us" crap. Just because I don`t eat every word they spew doesn`t mean I blame America solely for every ill in the world or that I hate my homeland. That line of bull**** is just rubbish and I`m damn tired of it.

Until these clowns begin to accept the responsibility of their deadly errors few will take them seriously.

peragro · #**372** 09-03-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

I buy the first three bullets, the rest is the same `ole "with us, agin us" crap. Just because I don`t eat every word they spew doesn`t mean I blame America solely for every ill in the world or that I hate my homeland. That line of bull**** is just rubbish and I`m damn tired of it.

Until these clowns begin to accept the responsibility of their deadly errors few will take them seriously.

To which clowns are you referring?

If you buy the first three bullets then you must also accept that throughout the 90's bullet number three was the SOP which paved the road for 9/11. Bullet two is and has been the approach of the UN which only seems to pursue this course of action moreso the further it is shown to be foolish. I mean really, Syria is now in charge of disarming Hezbollah according to the UN

Bullet one again points to North Korea from which unilateral talks and the UN allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. Yet, the same people that gave them this oppurtunity want to do it all over again. I think there is ample clownhood to go around.

I still believe that this is a great country. Rumsfeld's bullet number 4 is quite accurate. We had as much part in making the current islamo fascists (less actually) than did the Europeans and the Ottoman empire, yet the negative focus is on what we did while very little is directed to others with more culpability. Furthermore, we spend endless months of news coverage wringing our hands over prisoners who are better treated than many of our own people and radically disproportionatly than are our captured service members and civilians treated.

The negativity aimed at this country by citizens of this country is disproportionate and unfairly given in the light of history and current events. It does harm to what is going on overseas. Whether you believe we went there for the right purpose or not, we are there now and the importance of success in that arena should be obvious to all, no matter whom they support politically. The negativity aimed at us by our own is done so at the expense of acknowledging the people who really are trying to kill us.

As I said the country is great, yet imperfect. I posted the article, which I thought was accurate and worth reading, from and imperfect SecDef. His points are valid despite what mistakes he has made.

aklim · #**373** 09-03-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I still believe that this is a great country. Rumsfeld's bullet number 4 is quite accurate. We had as much part in making the current islamo fascists (less actually) than did the Europeans and the Ottoman empire, yet the negative focus is on what we did while very little is directed to others with more culpability. Furthermore, we spend endless months of news coverage wringing our hands over prisoners who are better treated than many of our own people and radically disproportionatly than are our captured service members and civilians treated.

The negativity aimed at this country by citizens of this country is disproportionate and unfairly given in the light of history and current events. It does harm to what is going on overseas. Whether you believe we went there for the right purpose or not, we are there now and the importance of success in that arena should be obvious to all, no matter whom they support politically. The negativity aimed at us by our own is done so at the expense of acknowledging the people who really are trying to kill us.

As I said the country is great, yet imperfect. I posted the article, which I thought was accurate and worth reading, from and imperfect SecDef. His points are valid despite what mistakes he has made.

That seems to be they way things go. Look at the Russians and Afghanistan. They don't spend time doing that. They reject anything that says they did wrong and others heap it on them. We, OTOH, are fond of taking the blame for everything. Now, don't get me wrong. We have done some bad things too. It is a big **** sandwich and we all gotta take a bite. However, people here are fond of taking several bites for others and they are quite content to let us take the bites.

I think we need to see if we went there with the right way of doing a job or not. Right being defined as efficient. If it is not efficient, it doesn't matter. We don't take time to study the rules of engagement. The real rules and not the stupid scribblings of some people in Geneva that are long dead and have no ideas of what is going on. This is just like me hooking up the horse to the cart to haul stuff. Well, times have changed and what works then doesn't work now. A rule book is only good if people abide by it. Otherwise, all we have at best is Victor's Justice. Just like Nerumberg. We need to understand that there is no referee to give militants a 40 yard penalty for unsportsman like conduct.

IMO, it is the best place in the world to be but will always be imperfect. If anyone thinks that better lies out there, I would urge them to go there. If they find happiness there, good for them. If not, they will return, sober and a little more wise in the ways of the world when they find that their Utopia has the metaphorical "Feet of Clay". If the SecDef has something to say, I'd be glad to hear it and then pass my opinion and not just dismiss it offhandledly because I think he is an idiot or buy it wholesale because he is my idol.

soypwrd · #**374** 09-03-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

To which clowns are you referring?

Bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, fief (sp), etc. ... you know, the ones who got us deep into in this no-win situation who are now claiming all is well and anyone who disagrees is a traitor. We are being governed by a ship of fools.

I too believe this is the best country in which to call home, just not what it used to be and certainly not what it could be. Who is to blame? Joe Sixpack for falling asleep at the wheel and turning over the reigns to bumbling idiots and self serving arrogant evil doers.

peragro · #**375** 09-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

Bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, fief (sp), etc. ... you know, the ones who got us deep into in this no-win situation who are now claiming all is well and anyone who disagrees is a traitor. We are being governed by a ship of fools.

I too believe this is the best country in which to call home, just not what it used to be and certainly not what it could be. Who is to blame? Joe Sixpack for falling asleep at the wheel and turning over the reigns to bumbling idiots and self serving arrogant evil doers.

So just to clarify. You believe that the entire fault of what is happening in the world with regard to the middle east, North Korea, China, and so on is the complete fault and responsibility of the Bush Administration? Is this your position?

With regard to the no-win situation. It is far from that. As Rumsfeld pointed out and is plainly obvious, it may result in a no-win but not because we can't win but because we choose not to win. For a definitive no-win scenario I would invite you to review the foreign policy of the 1990s.

To my knowledge the term traitor has never been used by the current administration, myself or anyone I know. Even against those who are clearly traitors as are Lindh and Gadahn (actually, I've called them traitors as that's what they are). In large part the term as you apply it is of your own creation.