How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #61 08-14-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxland

This is supposedly what seperates us from them. The "radical" "evil" head-chopping *********s that we all hate. To become them is (in my opinion) to let them win.

I disagree.

As I've said before, you must use the right tool for the job.

Our enemy is radical Islam.

To solve a radical problem inherently requires a radical solution.

Mike

aklim · #62 08-14-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I disagree.

As I've said before, you must use the right tool for the job.

Our enemy is radical Islam.

To solve a radical problem inherently requires a radical solution.

Mike

Mike, the question is valid. Howver, the more important question is whether you value a real victory over a phyrric victory. Would you want your last breath to be "I win and you lose" before they chop off your head?

Botnst · #63 08-14-2006, 10:18 AM

Here's my 88 yr-old Mother's take on that article I posted.

Bot

---------------------------------

Someone on this morning's news was saying that we would never have won WW II if the news people had been reporting every morning how many thousand Americans had been kiilled on some Pacific island or in Europe, and if the news people had gone around and shown the German and Japanese civilians who had been killed and injured.

I can swear to it that there was nothing thought in this country but WIN WIN WIN, and we will do all it takes until the winning end. Politeness and rules had nothing to do with waging war.

raymr · #64 08-14-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

We did in the past because it was strategic. Life is not going to be a video game where you put another quarter and we start it over. At this point, Isreal is still a strategic place. It does keep the bunch of them in check with something else to worry about so it is a good thing. Even if we did stop today, assuming our strategic point doesn't get wiped out, they would still be our enemies so there is no going back.

Probelm is that the way the UN works is that something gets done ONLY if the major powers in it are not in disagreement. All it takes is 1 veto and the measure is done for. Yes, in theory, your answer would work. However, it would be like the story of the little red hen. When it comes down to it, nobody would want to do the work. So, we did the only thing possible which is what we are doing right now with a little more clout. I doubt it would make the jihadist's enemies stateless. They would blame the countries that were contributing and what not so we have the issue still spread out. Also, that might mean we get buffeted to where the others want us irrespective of whether it is good for us or not. Just like Kyoto.

We can't selectively be an island and then a member of the world community as we see fit for the occasion. The world is steadily shrinking, and I think more decisions regarding international relations should be managed by a world body, instead of unilaterally by us. After all, when we insert ourselves in other countries' affairs, people no longer say its purely to spread freedom and democracy, its because theres some sort of gain to be had. More and more, the world sees our actions as another move to maintain our high levels of consumption. As the last super power, credibility is important. How do you maintain credibility against such conflicting values?

As long as the world regards Israel as an important sovereign entity, it has nothing to fear from such an arrangement. Perhaps the UN was created for such a time. Even Hezbollah listens to the UN, but not the US. As far as not creating a stateless enemy of Jihad, I would rather they have many enemies instead of 2 or 3.

aklim · #65 08-14-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

We can't selectively be an island and then a member of the world community as we see fit for the occasion. The world is steadily shrinking, and I think more decisions regarding international relations should be managed by a world body, instead of unilaterally by us. After all, when we insert ourselves in other countries' affairs, people no longer say its purely to spread freedom and democracy, its because theres some sort of gain to be had. More and more, the world sees our actions as another move to maintain our high levels of consumption. As the last super power, credibility is important. How do you maintain credibility against such conflicting values?

As long as the world regards Israel as an important sovereign entity, it has nothing to fear from such an arrangement. Perhaps the UN was created for such a time. Even Hezbollah listens to the UN, but not the US. As far as not creating a stateless enemy of Jihad, I would rather they have many enemies instead of 2 or 3.

Why not? The rest of the world seems to do it just fine. But do you have such a body in mind? The UN? They are little more than a joke with several people having veto power. It is not credible really unless everyone wants to do something and by everyone I mean that the 5 perm. members. If any of them disagree, it doesn't work. Assuming the 5 of them don't disagree, it basically gives one member there a vote irrespective of how many people it affects. We are not there to spread freedom and democracy. Nobody believes it anymore even us. We are there because it suits our purposes and if freedom and democracy ensue, great. Everybody does something because they have an axe to grind. Find me a country that votes against it's own better interest for the sake of the rest of the world in the UN.

Do Hezbollah listen to the UN? What about the resolution to disarm? OK. Ancient history. What about this?

The Lebanese government, which includes two members of Hezbollah, unanimously approved Security Council Resolution 1701 on Saturday, Siniora said.

OK. Looking good so far especially since the resolution number is of the Starship USS Enterprise.

While Siniora said only the Lebanese Army and U.N. forces would be allowed to bear arms, the two Hezbollah members told the Cabinet that the Islamic militia has no intention of disarming south of the Litani River, about 15 miles (25 kilometers) north of the Israel-Lebanon border, a senior Cabinet member said.

Sure. They listen. As I said. Only if it suits them. Just like we or anyone does. Even if I have 500 enemies, it doesn't matter. What you are hoping is that it defuese the blame to all the others and so we are less responsible and maybe get targeted less. However, they would be more focussed than you. It is not necessary for me to battle all 500. I just have to take down the strongest and that will make the rest fall in line. If you have a pack of dogs or wolves and one of them wants to be leader of the pack. Does he challenge everyone? Nope. Just the alpha. Winner becomes or stays top dog.

t walgamuth · #66 08-14-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Here's my 88 yr-old Mother's take on that article I posted.

Bot

---------------------------------

Someone on this morning's news was saying that we would never have won WW II if the news people had been reporting every morning how many thousand Americans had been kiilled on some Pacific island or in Europe, and if the news people had gone around and shown the German and Japanese civilians who had been killed and injured.

I can swear to it that there was nothing thought in this country but WIN WIN WIN, and we will do all it takes until the winning end. Politeness and rules had nothing to do with waging war.

such a total commitment was essential to winning a huge conflict in ww2. and it was apparent that our participation was essential. hell, they declared war on us. so we had no choice.

in the current war, the leaders mislead us (deliberately or not, it does not matter really) about the impending wmd. so we got in under false pretenses. and they told us it would be a slam dunk. and they told us the iraqis would crown us as liberators.

it is the job of the news media to inform us when our leaders are not. if the news is bad it is not their fault. if public opinion runs against the war, that is the way it goes in a democratic republic. sorry.

the idea that if we all just got behind it and shut up and everything would be hunky dory is just silly.

sorry mom b.

tom w

Botnst · #67 08-14-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

such a total commitment was essential to winning a huge conflict in ww2. and it was apparent that our participation was essential. hell, they declared war on us. so we had no choice.

in the current war, the leaders mislead us (deliberately or not, it does not matter really) about the impending wmd. so we got in under false pretenses. and they told us it would be a slam dunk. and they told us the iraqis would crown us as liberators.

it is the job of the news media to inform us when our leaders are not. if the news is bad it is not their fault. if public opinion runs against the war, that is the way it goes in a democratic republic. sorry.

the idea that if we all just got behind it and shut up and everything would be hunky dory is just silly.

sorry mom b.

tom w

If you want to win a war you embrace war.

If you want to have peace, you embrace peace.

If you embrace neither war nor peace, defeat will find you.

B

peragro · #68 08-14-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Until we are willing to be exponentially more of everything the terrorists are with ruthless execution, we will not win. At best we will contain them and lose hundreds or thousands of innocent countrymen/children/women a year; not to mention limiting/losing our freedom for the sake of general security.

They come after us because we are fat and weak. We pace and bleat every time the topic of viciously defending ourselves arises........meanwhile the wolves are gathering and, as Bot vividly describes, they are red in tooth and claw.

I have no power or influence beyond my family and myself, so I work within those confines.......

Well said Azi. Like you, I have power only over mine, however I do what I can when I can. I think my sons will be fighting this when they are adults, at the rate it seems to be taking many in this country to see the threat for what it is. They are 4 and 1.

raymr · #69 08-14-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Until we are willing to be exponentially more of everything the terrorists are with ruthless execution, we will not win. At best we will contain them and lose hundreds or thousands of innocent countrymen/children/women a year; not to mention limiting/losing our freedom for the sake of general security.

They come after us because we are fat and weak. We pace and bleat every time the topic of viciously defending ourselves arises........meanwhile the wolves are gathering and, as Bot vividly describes, they are red in tooth and claw.

I have no power or influence beyond my family and myself, so I work within those confines.......

By saying we need to be more of what the terrorists are, you are suggesting, for example, we abandon conventional rules of engagement and start bombing civilian centers whereever we think the enemy is hiding? Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level? If we are going to adopt ruthless eye-for-an-eye measures to kill the enemy, why not just drop a few big ones and save a bunch of American lives in the process?

azimuth · #70 08-14-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

By saying we need to be more of what the terrorists are, you are suggesting, for example, we abandon conventional rules of engagement and start bombing civilian centers whereever we think the enemy is hiding? Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level? If we are going to adopt ruthless eye-for-an-eye measures to kill the enemy, why not just drop a few big ones and save a bunch of American lives in the process?

Where else in life/kingdom animalia does the prey conquer the predator?

aklim · #71 08-14-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

By saying we need to be more of what the terrorists are, you are suggesting, for example, we abandon conventional rules of engagement and start bombing civilian centers whereever we think the enemy is hiding?

Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level?

If we are going to adopt ruthless eye-for-an-eye measures to kill the enemy, why not just drop a few big ones and save a bunch of American lives in the process?

What rules? The ones that they themselves are not following? Maybe you should protest to the Ref and have him give them a 10 yard penalty for unsportsman like behavior. YES, OF COURSE.

ABSO FAWKING LUTELY

We should not take an eye for an eye. That leaves everybody with no eyes sooner or later. Take both their eyes and an arm when they take an eye of yours out. Why not drop a few big ones? I don't know. Other than we don't ahve the stones to, that is.

raymr · #72 08-14-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

Where else in life/kingdom animalia does the prey conquer the predator?

Thats whats nice about the ME. Theres always another chance to get it right. Well I just spun the WMD wheel again and it..looks..like...its... gonnaaaa.....ssstttopp....ooonnnn..........Iran

azimuth · #73 08-14-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Thats whats nice about the ME. Theres always another chance to get it right. Well I just spun the WMD wheel again and it..looks..like...its... gonnaaaa.....ssstttopp....ooonnnn..........Iran

sorry, I'm slow. In which ways is the above statement germane to the question I directed toward you?

450slcguy · #74 08-14-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

By saying we need to be more of what the terrorists are, you are suggesting, for example, we abandon conventional rules of engagement and start bombing civilian centers whereever we think the enemy is hiding? Should we temporarily suspend our notions of decency and human sanctity to deal with them at their level? If we are going to adopt ruthless eye-for-an-eye measures to kill the enemy, why not just drop a few big ones and save a bunch of American lives in the process?

If we want to preserve our western way of life we need to do whatever it takes to win a war that has been going on and off for almost a thousand years. The difference today is that our "enemies" are developing global WMD and will use them without hesistation, whereas we will sit on the stump and ponder about being a civilized society playing by some self induced sense of morality. Our Islamic enemies don't differentiate between our military and civilian population. We are all the enemy to them and therefore we should all be killed. There are no innocent civilians when it comes to nationalistic war, as all citizens are subjected to supporting their countries military on opposing sides, wheather they like it or not. War is brutal, bloody and barbaric, it has always been that way and will always be that way. Are we fighting for our lives, that is what determines how far we should go to defend ourselves.

Should we wait until our enemies develope nuclear weapons and use them against us before we respond? Or should we take preemtive action to eliminate their threat? Tough choice for a morally civilized society. Have we gotten to that point of "survival of the fittest" mentality? IMHO not yet, but we are approaching it and will soon have to make that decision. It's similar to the decision to nuke Japan in WW2. I think we made the right choice then, and I believe if it comes down to it again, we do it, nuke them into oblivion. They will do it to us one day if we allow it to happen.

raymr · #75 08-14-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

sorry, I'm slow. In which ways is the above statement germane to the question I directed toward you?

You didn't answer mine, or maybe you did implicitly. I'll presume your answers were YES, YES, and WHY NOT INDEED.

In that case, your vision of what needs to be done may become more of a reality, should my prediction of an Iran war come to pass. Decisions will be based on the limited ground troops available, if it happens in the near future. Its still hard to fathom at this point.