How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 34 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #**496** 09-06-2006, 01:41 AM

cmac2012 · #**497** 09-06-2006, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

I'll bet you've heard plenty of Jeff Beck but don't realize it. I thought he played guitar for Rod Stewart back in the 70's. He was pretty good, but certainly no Clapton.

cmac2012 · #**498** 09-06-2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What kind of bombs? They were mainly targeted at Hezbollah positions. Yes, some civillians got bombed too. Sucks to be them. Maybe they shouldn't let Hezbollah put up a missile site in their neighbourhood?

I harbor a known criminal. Police come for him and he puts up a fight. My house now looks light swiss cheese. Whose fault?

Yes, thank you Aklim. You've said that about 20 times. Point is, people discount their own culpablility big time when bombs are falling on them. We in the US, for the most part, are loathe to accept any shred of responsibility for hostility towards us. Witness the outrage any time someone tries to point out that we've sowed the seeds of 9/11 for years. Why do you expect Lebanese to behave any differently?

Just because you and/or Israelis think "smart" bombs are justified and will achieve desired ends, doesn't mean they will. In many regards, it just amps up the general level of hostility and gives the terrorist recruiters more material to work with.

Besides, smart bombs are not nearly as surgical as hawks would have us believe. And even when they are, they're only as good as the intel that aims them -- such as the blowing up of a block's worth of houses because we thought Saddam would be there. Oops! Sorry. It was for a good cause, really it was. Hope you can get over the annhilation of your family there, dude.

aklim · #**499** 09-06-2006, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Yes, thank you Aklim. You've said that about 20 times. Point is, people discount their own culpablility big time when bombs are falling on them. We in the US, for the most part, are loathe to accept any shred of responsibility for hostility towards us. Witness the outrage any time someone tries to point out that we've sowed the seeds of 9/11 for years. Why do you expect Lebanese to behave any differently?

Just because you and/or Israelis think "smart" bombs are justified and will achieve desired ends, doesn't mean they will. In many regards, it just amps up the general level of hostility and gives the terrorist recruiters more material to work with.

Besides, smart bombs are not nearly as surgical as hawks would have us believe. And even when they are, they're only as good as the intel that aims them -- such as the blowing up of a block's worth of houses because we thought Saddam would be there. Oops! Sorry. It was for a good cause, really it was. Hope you can get over the annhilation of your family there, dude.

I don't expect them to behave differently. It's par for the course. We do things that people don't like and they do the same. I don't gripe when the sun rises in the east.

I don't think smart bombs are worth a damn. Where did I say that? I'd settle for an old fashoned carpet bombing. Much cheaper in the long run. Yes, it gives the recruiters more material to work with. Hence the carpet bombing. It has an effect of reducing the material advailable. What do you suggest? Isreal take it and take it and take it in the shorts?

See above and my previous posts on smart bombs. I think it was a dumb decision to make them. Much cheaper to invest in a load of dumb ones that flatten everything in its path.

jlomon · #**500** 09-06-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Consider this too. You think that if they did it would end? What if they ask for more? Yes, in a perfect world, it should end all hostilities. Actually, it would end it even in this imperfect world. It would be considered a sign of weakness and thus a signal to let the exploitation begin. Look at Lebanon. If they were leveled and totally killed it would be victory for the Isrealis. That some were alive and only the terrorists targeted, it was considered a victory for Hezbollah. As I have said before, Hezbollah and Hamaas are NOT intrested in your gee-whiz technology that can single out 2 people out of 1000. They are intested in how many of that 1000 you can kill and if you can do it repeatedly.

If you have a look back at my post, where I said "I'm not saying it would, but it should" then you'll have the answer to your question. The point I was making is that Hamas/Hezbollah are not fighting the exact same war as Al Qaeda is, they just have some common interests right now. They are merely working for the elimination of the Israeli state.

Militant Islam has a loftier goal and would not cease activites if Israel was one day pushed into the sea. Which is why I didn't put the murder of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich on the list of battles between Militant Islam and the West.

mikemover · #**501** 09-06-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

At a symposium last spring on "Islam and the West," which was sponsored by The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations noted, "The human species is facing a huge historical, cultural problem... For reasons that have very little to do with the U.S., we need to face the fact that we'll be living with this for a very long time." Mead said it isn't just an Arab problem, but an Islamic world problem, which transcends borders and regions. "If you don't understand this, you're deluding yourself," he said.

This is the best part of the whole article.

The partisan politics of the whole thing are obvious, and are to be expected. One party will ALWAYS blame the other for the "bad times", and will fail to give credit for the "good times".

But this paragraph is the important one. So many people fail to realize, or at least refuse to admit for moronic politically-correct reasons, that the true root of the problem is radical Islamic culture. The situation has been brewing for a LONG time, and the clerics and leaders of this movement prey upon the weak, the poor, the uneducated....

It is a cancer, and the cancer is spreading. You don't "negotiate" with cancer. You take radical measures to eliminate it.

Until our government, and the rest of the civilized world, starts dealing with it as such, we are going to continue to spin our collective wheels.

Mike

Vronsky · #**502** 09-06-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

This is the best part of the whole article.

The partisan politics of the whole thing are obvious, and are to be expected. One party will ALWAYS blame the other for the "bad times", and will fail to give credit for the "good times".

But this paragraph is the important one. So many people fail to realize, or at least refuse to admit for moronic politically-correct reasons, that the true root of the problem is radical Islamic culture. The situation has been brewing for a LONG time, and the clerics and leaders of this movement prey upon the weak, the poor, the uneducated....

It is a cancer, and the cancer is spreading. You don't "negotiate" with cancer. You take radical measures to eliminate it.

Until our government, and the rest of the civilized world, starts dealing with it as such, we are going to continue to spin our collective wheels.

Mike

Watch your precious bodily fluids, Mike

raymr · #**503** 09-06-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

This is the best part of the whole article.

The partisan politics of the whole thing are obvious, and are to be expected. One party will ALWAYS blame the other for the "bad times", and will fail to give credit for the "good times".

But this paragraph is the important one. So many people fail to realize, or at least refuse to admit for moronic politically-correct reasons, that the true root of the problem is radical Islamic culture. The situation has been brewing for a LONG time, and the clerics and leaders of this movement prey upon the weak, the poor, the uneducated....

It is a cancer, and the cancer is spreading. You don't "negotiate" with cancer. You take radical measures to eliminate it.

Until our government, and the rest of the civilized world, starts dealing with it as such, we are going to continue to spin our collective wheels.

Mike

Or maybe not so radical measures. Capital punishment may work as a deterrent for some, but most people avoid a life of crime because they have better choices. The people being sucked into radical Islamism probably see no alternatives. The long term solution is to keep big groups of people from joining by making sure they have other more interesting and fulfilling pursuits.

I can say for sure, the longer the jihadists insist on using terrorism, all Muslims here in the US will be affected because they will be denied more and more liberties. Thats what it will come down to in order to protect the interests of this country. I think PC is headed out the door, and it will be interesting to see how well everyone adapts.

aklim · #**504** 09-06-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

If you have a look back at my post, where I said "I'm not saying it would, but it should" then you'll have the answer to your question. The point I was making is that Hamas/Hezbollah are not fighting the exact same war as Al Qaeda is, they just have some common interests right now. They are merely working for the elimination of the Israeli state.

Militant Islam has a loftier goal and would not cease activites if Israel was one day pushed into the sea. Which is why I didn't put the murder of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich on the list of battles between Militant Islam and the West.

I did. Why would you even think that it should? I wouldn't. It's like someone said on gun control when asked. They mentioned that if they said their aim was to get rid of all guns, they wouldn't get much support. So they chip away by saying all they want is merely to control it. They would try to control it till it was so tightly regulated, you would have to either be illegal or a cop to get one.

aklim · #**505** 09-06-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Or maybe not so radical measures. Capital punishment may work as a deterrent for some, but most people avoid a life of crime because they have better choices. The people being sucked into radical Islamism probably see no alternatives. The long term solution is to keep big groups of people from joining by making sure they have other more interesting and fulfilling pursuits.

I can say for sure, the longer the jihadists insist on using terrorism, all Muslims here in the US will be affected because they will be denied more and more liberties. Thats what it will come down to in order to protect the interests of this country. I think PC is headed out the door, and it will be interesting to see how well everyone adapts.

Well, socialism was supposed to address that issue once communism transitioned to it but I don't think that has happened yet. In fact, communism is transitioning slowly but surely to capitalism. You sure that most people avoid crime because they have better choices? I think it is because they fear getting caught and punished. Think I drive the speed limit because it is safer, blah, blah, blah? I drive it because I don't want to get fined and have my licence taken away. When I didn't have $100 to my name, I didn't commit crime because I don't want to be locked up and make my situation worse.

I doubt it. I think they will simply weather the storm. Look at 911. That was their golden opportunity to hold rallys and what not to denounce it. Yes, there were some mumblings here and there but I did not see massive demonstrations and what not. Look at the muslims when we went to Afghanistan. They had to get permission from their cleric. Think they will change? I doubt it.

Honus · #**506** 09-06-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

The president's plan for winning the war on terror:

No, doubt, the President has a plan all figured out. His Press Secretary made it all crystal clear for everybody:

Quote:

But on the other hand, you also cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you've got to stay the course.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 8/17/06

Quote:

Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 9/5/06

How could I have ever doubted them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...Contrasted with the Democratic plan for winning the war on terror:

"let's pack up our crap and go home, we, and the UN, can talk our way out of trouble with these Muslim folks. They'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone."

That's a straw man. No Democrat in any position of authority has made that argument.

450slcguy · #**507** 09-06-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

The president's plan for winning the war on terror:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/national_strategy_for_combatin.html

Contrasted with the Democratic plan for winning the war on terror:

"let's pack up our crap and go home, we, and the UN, can talk our way out of trouble with these Muslim folks. They'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone."

As much as I hate to admit it, I can't disagree with much that was stated in that speech. No surprise here, but most of my political leanings have been with the left ("Bush Hater"). But lately I find myself more in agreement with GWB crowd when it comes to the war on terror.

While I'm not ready to cross any lines, I will conceid to his visions on fighting the war on terror Gee, Maybe OD can make a difference. I just hope the Democratic party fields a canidate with similar intent and positions when it comes to the war. If not, that might cause serious consequences on the way I vote in the next election.

Honus · #**508** 09-06-2006, 01:31 PM

Nice little rant on why W has no credibility: http://www.dump.com/ldjme/

raymr · #**509** 09-06-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, socialism was supposed to address that issue once communism transitioned to it but I don't think that has happened yet. In fact, communism is transitioning slowly but surely to capitalism. You sure that most people avoid crime because they have better choices? I think it is because they fear getting caught and punished. Think I drive the speed limit because it is safer, blah, blah, blah? I drive it because I don't want to get fined and have my licence taken away. When I didn't have $100 to my name, I didn't commit crime because I don't want to be locked up and make my situation worse.

I doubt it. I think they will simply weather the storm. Look at 911. That was their golden opportunity to hold rallys and what not to denounce it. Yes, there were some mumblings here and there but I did not see massive demonstrations and what not. Look at the muslims when we went to Afghanistan. They had to get permission from their cleric. Think they will change? I doubt it.

Maybe if they could be turned on to sports and sex, they wouldn't be so hell-bent on blowing up half the world.

Honus · #**510** 09-06-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...It is a cancer, and the cancer is spreading. You don't "negotiate" with cancer. You take radical measures to eliminate it...

That's right, so long as you include the radical notion that sometimes, just sometimes, the United States is in the wrong. For example, consider this bit of good news from http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470:

"ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It will be the first time the Administration publicly acknowledges the existence of the prisons.

"A source familiar with the president's announcement says it will apply to all prisoners now being held by the CIA, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh.

"The source says there are "about a dozen" prisoners now being held by the CIA.

"Until now, the U.S. government has not officially acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons."

How many people has the adminstration branded as traitors for saying those exact things?