How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 40 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**586** 09-08-2006, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

These guys are like pimples on an unhealthy body. Squeeze one or two, there'll be new ones. We need to have an eye to improving the health of the body, instead of holding news conferences about what a GDed big zit we just squeezed.

Sad fact, we've interloped in their lands much more than vicey versa. Got to stop, as an initial step.

If the acne gets bad, you take an antibiotic and that quite often does the trick.

aklim · #**587** 09-08-2006, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

We have to hold the moral high ground.

If we abuse their guys, it'll only get worse.

Why? Who judges the moral high ground? The living. Not much point in holding it if you are dead, is there?

Worse as in how? How can it possibly be worse?

aklim · #**588** 09-08-2006, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It's not well armed states that are attacking us. It's fringe bands of loonies. It's a war and it's not a war.

Is it? Or is it a fringe band supported by those supposedly to be outside of the fringe?

aklim · #**589** 09-08-2006, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

My point was that W seemed to have a problem with abiding by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention. The first is impermissible, period.

The second seems foolish to me and to credible commentators such as Senator McCain.

Agreed.

There we disagree. I think he did the right thing. The GC is hardly worth a roll of toilet paper. Does the other side follow it? If not, what is the point?

aklim · #**590** 09-08-2006, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

There are no easy answers here. Bit it's definitely not WW2 where more deadly force will win the day.

It will not work when you don't apply it. This is like taking antibiotics. Take a pill, skip a pill, take another, skip 2. Wonder why it didn't work.

Mistress · #**591** 09-08-2006, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

It will not work when you don't apply it. This is like taking antibiotics. Take a pill, skip a pill, take another, skip 2. Wonder why it didn't work.

A. You were drinking
B. You've taken so many antibiotics your body is now immune to them

raymr · #**592** 09-08-2006, 09:38 AM

I don't see a whole lot of outcry regarding the secret prisons. Mostly people are frustrated with whats going on, and whatever means are required to put down radical Islam, just do it. Since the thwarted attack in Denmark, I'm convinced that its not just a US-Israel thing. Actions need to be done on many levels. It will require education among young impressionable Muslims, as well as bold swift action against perpetrators, planners, and their enablers. As someone said, waiting for an attack is not an option. Dialogs and concessions are of little use.

We will have to drop a lot of the PC-ness (its religion against state), identify what needs to be dealt with, and forge ahead until the enemy is neutralized. All these steps take time. To our advantage, we have a lot to fight for and protect. They do not.

Honus · #**593** 09-08-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Agreed.

There we disagree. I think he did the right thing. The GC is hardly worth a roll of toilet paper. Does the other side follow it? If not, what is the point?

What's the point of treating prisoners with decency? I would think that question answers itself. The following blurb from the admittedly left-wing www.washingtonmonthly.com sums up my concerns on this:

Quote:

LOSING THE WAR....The New York Times reports today on the details of George Bush's proposed legislation regarding the interrogation of detainees. The wording is apparently so convoluted as to be nearly impenetrable, but once it's finally been penetrated it turns out that the meaning is clear:

"Many of the harsh interrogation techniques repudiated by the Pentagon on Wednesday would be made lawful by legislation put forward the same day by the Bush administration. And the courts would be forbidden from intervening.

....Legal experts say it adds up to an apparently unique interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, one that could allow C.I.A. operatives and others to use many of the very techniques disavowed by the Pentagon, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and extreme temperatures."

Even the Pentagon says this stuff is barbaric and ineffective. They have figured out, in theory if not always in practice, that we are essentially fighting a global counterinsurgency, not World War III, and that this is precisely the kind of thing that produces blowback a hundred times worse than the meager amount of information we get from torturing these guys. It's a recipe for losing the war against jihadism.

But Bush is bound and determined to write it into law anyway. He is, apparently, bound and determined to continue losing the war he has fought so ineptly for the past five years. I sure hope there are at least a few Republicans who have figured this out and can put the brakes on Bush's folly. We need to start winning.

jlomon · #**594** 09-08-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

No, we should have hunted them down and made them pay. That is the sort of thing that scares them. Find those responsible. Make them beg for death.

This doesn't even remotely scare them, and they'd never give you the satisfaction of begging for death. These extremists relish the opportunity to be martyred. That's when they get their 72 virgins, after all. Kill them for the sake of killing them so that they can't do their work again. It may not deter others but it will certainly prevent them from taking other actions.

If you are truly serious about employing any means necessary as a deterent, then take a page from Israel's book from a few years back when they would bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers and just take it further. Go after their families without mercy, specifically the women.

Honus · #**595** 09-08-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

...Go after their families without mercy, specifically the women.

You forgot to add one of these -

- to show that you were kidding. The problem with these boards is that comments like that often appear to be sincere.

BTW, that Isreal's bulldozer policy really seems to be working well for them, doesn't it?

(See, I was being sarcastic there.)

jlomon · #**596** 09-08-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

You forgot to add one of these -

- to show that you were kidding. The problem with these boards is that comments like that often appear to be sincere.

BTW, that Isreal's bulldozer policy really seems to be working well for them, doesn't it?

(See, I was being sarcastic there.)

Who said I was kidding? While I didn't say I endorsed the tactic, if the objective is to scare them, and you are prepared to fight without any moral constraints, then it is a valid tactic.

Israel didn't employ the strategy for very long at all because of world outcry. I think it was only a matter of weeks. So there isn't enough data to see if it had any sort of effect, and it certainly wasn't to the extent that I suggested as a "no holds barred" tactic. Israel decided that bad PR was worse than the potential deterrent effect.

raymr · #**597** 09-08-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

This doesn't even remotely scare them, and they'd never give you the satisfaction of begging for death. These extremists relish the opportunity to be martyred. That's when they get their 72 virgins, after all. Kill them for the sake of killing them so that they can't do their work again. It may not deter others but it will certainly prevent them from taking other actions.

If you are truly serious about employing any means necessary as a deterent, then take a page from Israel's book from a few years back when they would bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers and just take it further. Go after their families without mercy, specifically the women.

The only way to fight back is to become more ruthless than they are. We need to toughen up as individuals and as a nation to leave no doubt in the minds of would-be jihadists that they are up against a superior power. Otherwise we are forever at their mercy. I really didn't want Israel to be our model for the future, but we are in a pickle now leaving us essentially no choice.

jlomon · #**598** 09-08-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

The only way to fight back is to become more ruthless than they are. We need to toughen up as individuals and as a nation to leave no doubt in the minds of would-be jihadists that they are up against a superior power.

I agree with this. What I would like to see in conjunction with "toughening up" is for the US/Western Forces to drop the "Good vs. Evil" rhetoric. We should drop the charade about being a force for good in the ME, and we should admit that we are a force for "us" in the ME. It isn't "good vs. evil", it is "us vs. them". Pretending otherwise is hypocritical.

Yes, western democracies provide a staggering number of rights and freedoms to their population that the Islamic extremists don't believe in. But we really aren't there to protect the rights or lives of the people. We're there because there is oil there and we need that oil. If the west was just about helping oppressed/endangered people then we would have acted with urgency in Rwanda and we would be all over Darfur. We only care when there is something in it for us. I'm not saying that's wrong, that's just human nature. I'd like to just have us be honest about it.

aklim · #**599** 09-08-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

This doesn't even remotely scare them, and they'd never give you the satisfaction of begging for death. These extremists relish the opportunity to be martyred. That's when they get their 72 virgins, after all. Kill them for the sake of killing them so that they can't do their work again. It may not deter others but it will certainly prevent them from taking other actions.

If you are truly serious about employing any means necessary as a deterent, then take a page from Israel's book from a few years back when they would bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers and just take it further. Go after their families without mercy, specifically the women.

That is why I said make them beg for death.

raymr · #**600** 09-08-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

I agree with this. What I would like to see in conjunction with "toughening up" is for the US/Western Forces to drop the "Good vs. Evil" rhetoric. We should drop the charade about being a force for good in the ME, and we should admit that we are a force for "us" in the ME. It isn't "good vs. evil", it is "us vs. them". Pretending otherwise is hypocritical.

Yes, western democracies provide a staggering number of rights and freedoms to their population that the Islamic extremists don't believe in. But we really aren't there to protect the rights or lives of the people. We're there because there is oil there and we need that oil. If the west was just about helping oppressed/endangered people then we would have acted with urgency in Rwanda and we would be all over Darfur. We only care when there is something in it for us. I'm not saying that's wrong, that's just human nature. I'd like to just have us be honest about it.

True. There is no secret about us being the worlds glutton in energy consumption, we shouldn't sugar-coat it.

Maybe democracies only work when there are goods or services (resources) available as a foundation. Unfortunately introducing this in the ME is like spoon-feeding spinach to a 2-year old. Its good for them, they just don't know it yet.