How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 43 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #**631** 09-09-2006, 10:09 AM

now there are some enlightened christian thoughts!

i want to think we have moral superiority, but the problem with this iraq thing is i am not getting that feeling.

tom w

aklim · #**632** 09-09-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

The towers being blown up was horrendous but it was a handful of people who did it, not an entire nation. It's a bit like the reaction of the Lebanese to Israeli bombs. The IDF was hoping they'd turn against Hez. for having brought this crap down on Leb. heads. Just the opposite happened. Not totally logical but somewhat.

I keep saying it. The Hydra headed beast. We're walking that road. We put 15 bad guys in Gitmo for life while Op. Iraqi Liberation enables the recruitment of eager replacements.

And those people are just the handful, right? No other support mechanism? Sure. Hez is the people and the people is Hez. They put them in the cabinet and definately other positions. How would you feel if say Clinton or Bush had a murderer or child molester in his cabinet? Pardoned, of course.

aklim · #**633** 09-09-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

now there are some enlightened christian thoughts!

i want to think we have moral superiority, but the problem with this iraq thing is i am not getting that feeling.

tom w

Not me. I don't give a crap about moral superiority.

Honus · #**634** 09-09-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...You get your history book and I'll get mine and lets search for nations that successfully won a war by being less brutal than their enemy/enemies.

You might be right about that, but your earlier statement wasn't that brutality is necessary for success in war, you said that brutality is always successful:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Sustained brutality has always worked in warfare...

I'd be more likely to concede that brutality is always necessary then I would to say that brutality always works.

Honus · #**635** 09-09-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I don't have easy answers but I've got better questions than some of what I see going around.

Such as, when Cheney said we'd be greeted as liberators, my question was, "Are you outta your **#*%&*&#* mind?!?

Or when it was said that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction, my question was, "Have you lost your mind??!??"

Or when Rummy said the war would last about 6 months, my question was, "What are YOU smoking?!

Same here. In fact there were many people asking those same questions before this war became a debacle, so charges of Monday morning quarterbacking don't hold up in this case.

t walgamuth · #**636** 09-09-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Not me. I don't give a crap about moral superiority.

obviously

that is exactly how osama ben laden feels.

tom w

Botnst · #**637** 09-09-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

You might be right about that, but your earlier statement wasn't that brutality is necessary for success in war, you said that brutality is always successful:I'd be more likely to concede that brutality is always necessary then I would to say that brutality always works.

I believe that every war that I have ever heard of supports my contention.

But you could be correct.

Bot

Honus · #**638** 09-09-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

Tell me why the left thinks this war is a debacle as you put it. Ya'll think this war is going so badly. Did you think we could just go in and punch Saddam in the face and walk away??...

Your question presumes that we had no choice but to go in to Iraq and remove Saddam from power, which was never true, IMHO. If your goal is to remove brutal tyrants, why start with Iraq? There are plenty of tyrants around the world. If your goal is to defend the United States, then you would be better off with the sanctions regime that contained, and even disarmed as it turns out, Saddam. The sanctions regime needed some work because it was contributing to widespread poverty in Iraq, but we should have found some way of addressing that issue that didn't include a full-scale invasion.

It's really not productive for me to keep complaining about W's decision to invade and I promised myself I would quit doing it. I think I get sucked into doing it because people keep making bogus arguments in defense of W and I can't resist responding.

Quote:

...The stability of the region is going to be the long haul situation. And that was made more than clear before the first bomb was dropped.

"more than clear"? Was it more than clear to Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.? You would never know it from their statements before the invasion.

BTW, whatever came of Richard Perle? He is one clueless SOB, isn't he?

cmac2012 · #**639** 09-09-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Same here. In fact there were many people asking those same questions before this war became a debacle, so charges of Monday morning quarterbacking don't hold up in this case.

I seriously doubt any of those characters believed that crap, on how easy and economical it would be. It was pablum for the masses to go along far enough to get Uncle Sam Global Commodity Distribution Inc. up and running.

cmac2012 · #**640** 09-09-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I suppose you also fell for the baby food factory bit? Watching a guy in a difficult situation is not evidence as to whether or not he is your enemy.

Radical muslims have declared YOU as their enemy. What are you going to do about it? They don't care whether you think they have redeemable qualities, or that you're an 'OK' guy. They hate you for what you are.

In the meantime, all over the ME, hate-teaching still goes on in their schools, and at this very moment clerics are instilling the same values among their followers.

What we need is direct response. The prisoners in gitmo should all be killed. Likewise with the 12 men in Britain. No trial, no nothing. Their stomachs should be filled with raw pig guts until they explode. Put it on live TV and web feeds so all can see. Lets see some real outrage among the Muslims who are otherwise so silent about terrorism. Let them feel a direct threat instead of protecting their asses under our laws. Then lets see who will step up to the terrorism plate?

Reaching out may be well and good. But how many are really reachable? Are you willing to send your kid to a remote village in Afghanistan to be part of a anti-hate campaign?

Great philosophers thoughout history have spoken variations on the theme "and he saw his enemy like unto himself."

That's what I got from the Iraqi father. I suspect if he wasn't an enemy of America before, he is now. The numbers of radical muslims who hate me to the degree you describe are still fairly low, IMO. We carry on as you advocate, those numbers will spike.

Probably half the guys in Gitmo were collected by paying big ransoms (for those countries) for Taliban/Al Qaeda from proven gentlemen in the Northern Alliance. This is the crowd that beats its captured enemies to a pulp for sport. I don't see any benefit in executing innocent pawns.

It's possible to go overboard with the military, no mercy approach. Germany thought it was omnipotent in the late 30s. It wasn't. Enough people decided their tactics and goals were unnacceptable.

Most of our forays into Arab lands have been to enrich ourselves at their expense. I don't imagine any anti-hate campaign would be believed at this point. The more you stir the water, the muddier it gets.

Botnst · #**641** 09-09-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I seriously doubt any of those characters believed that crap, on how easy and economical it would be. It was pablum for the masses to go along far enough to get Uncle Sam Global Commodity Distribution Inc. up and running.

Forget about the opponents of the war for a second.

Anybody who took the time to read and heed the warnings by the military and of Colin Powell concerning war with Iraq knew well before the vote was taken, that bringing peace would be a lot harder than beating Iraq was going to be. I clearly remembering Rumsfeld, for example, opining that we would be in Iraq from 7 - 10 years and maybe more. Many people suggested that England's long history of dealing with insurrections, many of them quite successful and some of them failures, was a useful model for the USA.

Bot

Honus · #**642** 09-09-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...I clearly remembering Rumsfeld, for example, opining that we would be in Iraq from 7 - 10 years and maybe more...

If my memory serves, Rumsfeld didn't say that until after the invasion. Am I mistaken about that?

cmac2012 · #**643** 09-09-2006, 03:29 PM

And what of the claims that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the operation?

I think we can put that in the wildly optimistic column.

Botnst · #**644** 09-09-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

And what of the claims that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the operation?

I think we can put that in the wildly optimistic column.

Some members of Congress suggested that but the Administrations policy specifically prohibited that as they did NOT want anybody to claim that seizure of the Iraqi oil was why we went into Iraq.

B

peragro · #**645** 09-09-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

Tell me why the left thinks this war is a debacle as you put it. Ya'll think this war is going so badly. Did you think we could just go in and punch Saddam in the face and walk away?? The "war" in the conventional sense of winning the battle of bringing the enemy into submission lasted a short time. 6 months or less. The stability of the region is going to be the long haul situation. And that was made more than clear before the first bomb was dropped.

Yes, I remember it being said that it would take quite a while.

Similarly, it's been stated numerous times that the war on terror is not all about Al Qaida specifically or Iraq. They are both part of it and it will also last for quite some time. That always appeared obvious to me.