How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 18 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #**256** 08-27-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

personally i think our war in iraq has seriously destabilized the middle east.

Hahaha... LOL!

I LOVE it when people say that!!! What a completely absurd statement!

That's kind of like pouring a bucket of water in the ocean and then saying, "Look, we made the water wet!"

There has not been "stability" in the Middle East for...

...well...

...EVER. Several centuries, at least.

Mike

t walgamuth · #**257** 08-28-2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Hahaha... LOL!

I LOVE it when people say that!!! What a completely absurd statement!

That's kind of like pouring a bucket of water in the ocean and then saying, "Look, we made the water wet!"

There has not been "stability" in the Middle East for...

...well...

...EVER. Several centuries, at least.

Mike

if you agreed with me on anything political i would be seriously worried.

tom w

Honus · #**258** 08-28-2006, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...What a completely absurd statement!...

Is that really necessary? Granted, not everyone has your great expertise in all things, but I can see how some might think that our deposing Iran's greatest enemy might have had a destabilizing effect on the Middle East. So, your phrase, "completely absurd," seems a little strong.

Chris Bell · #**259** 08-28-2006, 12:52 AM

First step in winning a war on terror is to become completely energy self-sufficient. Then and only then will we be able to deal with the terrorists from a position of strength. Until we achieve energy self-sufficiency any decision that a president makes, regardless of which party their in, will be tempered by the over riding need to keep the oil flowing. Until we achive energy self-sufficiency we're F'd.

aklim · #**260** 08-28-2006, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

First step in winning a war on terror is to become completely energy self-sufficient. Then and only then will we be able to deal with the terrorists from a position of strength. Until we achieve energy self-sufficiency any decision that a president makes, regardless of which party their in, will be tempered by the over riding need to keep the oil flowing. Until we achive energy self-sufficiency we're F'd.

Somehow people think we can move the world if we were this, that or the other. Have you considered that if someone else were affected, their problem becomes your problem? Think of your neighbourhood. If the guy up the road has a mess of a yard and his house is in shambles while yours looks brand new, do you think that you won't be affected when it comes time to sell? Keeping the oil flowing is not only important for us. It is important for the guy that we buy or sell from. If you owe me money and you lose your job or your wife gets fired, do you think I am going to be unaffected? After all, it is your job or your wife's job, right? When you cannot pay back, I will too get affected.

pj67coll · #**261** 08-28-2006, 03:26 AM

You cant win a war on terror until you recognise that it doesn't exist. That is to say we are fighting a new Crusade. The very nature of the enemies comments that this is a "Jihad" which means holy war shows they are in no doubt that it is a crusade and they are prepared to fight it ruthlessly as such. We are too politically correct even to admit that that's what it is so we pretend it's a war against a meaningless concept we call terror. Only when we start admitting that this is a clash of civilisations will we have a chance of comming out on top in the long run. But in the short run we will have many more bloody battles which unless we are prepared to be as ruthless as necessary we will continue to lose.

- Peter.

soypwrd · #**262** 08-28-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

First step in winning a war on terror is to become completely energy self-sufficient. Then and only then will we be able to deal with the terrorists from a position of strength. Until we achieve energy self-sufficiency any decision that a president makes, regardless of which party their in, will be tempered by the over riding need to keep the oil flowing. Until we achive energy self-sufficiency we're F'd.

Here, here.

And to aklim, if we found a way to be self sufficient (which would be extremely difficult to do BTW) we would be selling it to our neighbors who would want it just as much as we do, so your argument goes out the window. Do you think we`d be keeping any alternative energy technology to ourselves and not making a killing off it? Hell, the ensuing economic boom would make the Dot.com thing look like a kiddy party.

Botnst · #**263** 08-28-2006, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

You cant win a war on terror until you recognise that it doesn't exist. That is to say we are fighting a new Crusade. The very nature of the enemies comments that this is a "Jihad" which means holy war shows they are in no doubt that it is a crusade and they are prepared to fight it ruthlessly as such. We are too politically correct even to admit that that's what it is so we pretend it's a war against a meaningless concept we call terror. Only when we start admitting that this is a clash of civilisations will we have a chance of comming out on top in the long run. But in the short run we will have many more bloody battles which unless we are prepared to be as ruthless as necessary we will continue to lose.

- Peter.

Yep.

They declared war on us in the early 1990's and we reacted by making it a police matter. They blew things up and we looked for clues to build a case.

Bot

mikemover · #**264** 08-28-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

You cant win a war on terror until you recognise that it doesn't exist. That is to say we are fighting a new Crusade. The very nature of the enemies comments that this is a "Jihad" which means holy war shows they are in no doubt that it is a crusade and they are prepared to fight it ruthlessly as such. We are too politically correct even to admit that that's what it is so we pretend it's a war against a meaningless concept we call terror. Only when we start admitting that this is a clash of civilisations will we have a chance of comming out on top in the long run. But in the short run we will have many more bloody battles which unless we are prepared to be as ruthless as necessary we will continue to lose.

- Peter.

FINALLY, somebody gets it!

Nice post, Peter. Right on target.

Mike

mikemover · #**265** 08-28-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Is that really necessary? Granted, not everyone has your great expertise in all things, but I can see how some might think that our deposing Iran's greatest enemy might have had a destabilizing effect on the Middle East. So, your phrase, "completely absurd," seems a little strong.

I call it like I see it.

If I think something is absurd or ridiculous, I am going to call it absurd or ridiculous.

You can be politically correct and tiptoe around everyone's fragile little feelings if you want... I don't have time for that crap.

Mike

mikemover · #**266** 08-28-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

if you agreed with me on anything political i would be seriously worried.

tom w

My statement had nothing to do with politics, yours or mine.

It is merely a FACT.

The Middle East hasn't been anywhere close to being "stable" since LOOOOOOONG before the United States was even thought of.

Mike

soypwrd · #**267** 08-28-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

My statement had nothing to do with politics, yours or mine.

It is merely a FACT.

The Middle East hasn't been anywhere close to being "stable" since LOOOOOOONG before the United States was even thought of.

Mike

And the simple fact is it`s never been so destablized and dangerous to the entire world`s stability as it has been with this baffoonery of the bushoids.

Botnst · #**268** 08-28-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

And the simple fact is it`s never been so destablized and dangerous to the entire world`s stability as it has been with this baffoonery of the bushoids.

Never?

B

mikemover · #**269** 08-28-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

And the simple fact is it`s never been so destablized and dangerous to the entire world`s stability as it has been with this baffoonery of the bushoids.

Oh, yes it has.

Blaming it on Bush's "buffoonery" (and yes, I agree that there has been much "bufoonery" going on) is nothing more than a distraction from what it really going on, and a dangerous one at that.

Radical Islam is nothing new... Widespread poverty, ignorance, and lack of education have ALWAYS been issues in most of that part of the world, rendering the population there very gullible and susceptible to the influence of fundamentalist clerics and their teachings of hatred, intolerance, and violence.

These extremist religious leaders and their brainwashed followers have been attempting to spread that disease to other parts of the world for centuries... LONG before the US was around as a convenient scapegoat.

Now thanks to technology (planes, trains, cars, the internet, worldwide media, cell phones, etc.) these radicals have new and improved ways of spreading their irrational hatred and violent ways around the world.

All of which would have been happening WITH or WITHOUT "Bush's buffoonery". It was going on before Bush, during the "Clinton buffoonery" years as well, and of course has been going on LONG before then.

This is a fight against the spread of radical Islam. Believing that it is anything less is naive.

We (the US) are merely the most obvious target for their hatred.

Why?

Because we openly represent freedom of (or from) religion, individual rights and liberties, equality for women, representative government, we value education, equal opportunity... all the things that the extremist Muslim clergy hate, fear, and want to destroy the MOST!

Mike

t walgamuth · #**270** 08-28-2006, 10:34 AM

ok i admit it.

i should have said MORE destabilized.

having the opinion that ones opinions are automatically facts is pretty arrogant, imho.

and being rude and insulting really doesnt advance the discussion.

and saying you dont have time for any of this is just self aggrandizing.

tom w