All America can do lately is keep digging a hole

[Schweddy]

What I'm saying is that IF we are going to use the military, we need to understand what we're doing (killing people en mass, breaking everything we see) and that military victory is achieved by doing a LOT of this until the enemy no longer has a will to fight any more, or no longer has any living fighters...and that IF we are going to be squeamish and not fight with victory in mind and the cost understood, then we're better off not to go to war at all, GTFO and seek some other solution.

I can agree 100% with the emboldend above. If we have a bully and a fat kid...one day the fat kid *will* hit back. Easy concept. Very simplistic. We all know that when the arrogant bully gets hit, the dumbass fat kid was out of line - right? I'm *not* saying the fat kid or arrogant kid deserved it. I'm saying it is the law of nature to retort when stricken. Don't be the bully in the first place.

This is simple fifth grade reading material and worth billions in box office hits.

If you don't want to be punched in the gut, do try to avoid spitting in people's faces.

Amen to this statement.

 

[WI Crippler]

I think Bill Maher perfectly illustrates the shallow, "on demand", attitude of most Americans.

To think there are quick & easy solutions to issues that are almost beyond complex in their scope, is lunacy. What Maher, and his ilk are, are simply idealists. While idealists have a place in being the force behind progress, they usually do not consider the costs or consequences of their ideals. There has to be a measured and balanced approach to any policy, and not just knee-jerk "lets get it done now, consequences be damned" attitudes.

 

[Voidwar]

while never placing sufficient importance on the role of American governmental support to the Israeli government in provoking Islamic terrorism

How bout this, apologist ?

We will ally with whomever we choose and bomb the **** out of anyone who doesn't like it !

Your use of the word "provoke" sacrifices any thought you had of a leg to stand on. Terror is not an acceptable response to anything, so using the word provoke is uncalled for.

This is what's routinely ignored

It is ignored because we are not going to allow a bunch of Jihadis to dictate our alliances. If they try to scare us with their weak capabilities at violence, we should demonstrate ours with ruthless disregard.

Kill the whole village you think the last bomber came from.

That is the proper response to any and all terrorism.

Broad Daylight Execution of the people that make the terrorists.

 

[Redress]

I think Bill Maher perfectly illustrates the shallow, "on demand", attitude of most Americans.

To think there are quick & easy solutions to issues that are almost beyond complex in their scope, is lunacy. What Maher, and his ilk are, are simply idealists. While idealists have a place in being the force behind progress, they usually do not consider the costs or consequences of their ideals. There has to be a measured and balanced approach to any policy, and not just knee-jerk "lets get it done now, consequences be damned" attitudes.

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say, and saying it better than I managed.

 

[Harshaw]

Putting aside the fact that Maher's entire career revolves around the idea of getting people to sit on their butts and watch a screen, generally of people yelling at each other . . .

 

[First Thought]

Maher is part of the problem. What exactly does he do that's worthwhile?

Bring awareness to the problem.

 

[jackalope]

What part of Arabia did we occupy on 9/11/2001? Nada. Yet we got hit anyway.

While I am not in any way using the following to 'justify' the 9/11 attacks, the above statement isn't entirely accurate. Yes, we didn't 'occupy' Arabia, but we had troops based in Saudi Arabia, and it was a huge source of anger on the part of the extremists, including Al Qaeda.

 

[First Thought]

If I may, and not to be insulting here, but your rhetoric sounds strikingly like that of our current enemies. Now I know you are not meaning to sound that way but none the less, and I apologize if you are offended by that, but I call it as I see it.


j-mac

Who are our "enemies"? Who is it this week?

 

[Goshin]

I can agree 100% with the emboldend above. If we have a bully and a fat kid...one day the fat kid *will* hit back. Easy concept. Very simplistic. We all know that when the arrogant bully gets hit, the dumbass fat kid was out of line - right? I'm *not* saying the fat kid or arrogant kid deserved it. I'm saying it is the law of nature to retort when stricken. Don't be the bully in the first place.

This is simple fifth grade reading material and worth billions in box office hits.


Amen to this statement.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that we suffered 9/11 because we're the big bully of the world.

In some regards you're right. We do tend to stick our nose in where it isn't wanted at times. Somalia and Albania come to mind.

Let's look at the history of this a bit.

1947: after the appalling Holocaust, the UN, Europe and the US recognize the need for a Jewish homeland and chose to recognize Israel on a portion of the land that was historically theirs a couple millenia ago. Almost immediately, Israel is attacked by a coalition of Arab nations. Having recognized Israel and decided to support the existence of a jewish state, we support them with military equipment. Some Arabs start hating us for that immediately. Nevermind the fact that they possess almost all the land in that area, hundreds of times Israel's size (Israel being a little fingernail-pairing of land with its back to the ocean), they insist that there ain't gonna be no Jewish state in the Mideast, tiny as it is and history be damned.

1960-1970's: more of the same. We support the Shah of Iran, a rather harsh dictator, because he is our ally. So what, we might think...almost the entire region is run by harsh dictators of one sort or another. There's a revolution by Islamic fundamentalists, the Shah is out, and four hundred Americans are taken hostage and held for over a year.
Iran-Iraq war. At this time Iraq (headed by another dictator, Saddam) is our ally against Iran, who has decided we're the Great Satan because we support Israel and propped up the Shah.
The 1970's oil crisis scared us, and because of our oil intrests in the region we figured we needed allies there to help secure our intrests. So far all we've done is support those allied with us against those who oppose us....which is common practice among every nation on Earth except Switzerland.

1980's: Saddam allegedly thinks we'd be okay with him invading Kuwait and Saud, so he does it. Wires got crossed somewhere because we are NOT okay with that...we don't want Saddam having that much control over the oil supply all to himself because we don't really trust him very far. Gulf War I, Desert Storm. For the first time in a very long time, we actually go to war with a nominally-muslim country, the surface reason or causus-belli being to save Kuwait and Saud from Saddam. Guess what? As much as they hated and feared Saddam, they hate us worse because we're outsiders and not Muslim. The House of Saud graciously permits us to save their bacon, but wants Saddam left in place as a check on Iran and then wants us, after saving their bacon (heh) to GET OUT of the mideast. We're still hated by many for supporting Israel.

Oh yeah, Lebanon...we try to help bring a little order to chaos and get the Kobar Towers bombing killing a lot of our Marines in here somewhere.

1990's: ALONG WITH THE UNITED NATIONS, as part of their UN mandate, we go into Somalia and try to make order out of chaos. Guess what? The Somali warlords do not WANT us there and fight back. We lose a few soldiers and decide to pull out, looking weak to the mideasterners who hate us...especially one fellow named Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi chap with big plans and a lot of money.
The first attempt to destroy the Twin Towers.
The bombing of the Cole.
Albania/Croatia/etc...this time we're intervening on the SIDE OF THE MUSLIMS...a lot of thanks we get for that...

9/11/2001: at this time we were not occupying any Arab or Muslim soil, we had pulled back more than a little from intervening in Middle Eastern affairs and we got hit hard at home anyway.

Now look at all that...and tell me:
Were we being a big bully and picking on little guys for no reason...

...or were we pursuing our national intrests, supporting our allies against those who hate us, as all nations do...trying to support the UN mandate to feed the starving in Somalia and restore some order to chaos, and so on.

Personally I don't think we're the side of evil here, call me crazy.

We did some things that were not that bright maybe, other things we could have done better, some things maybe we should have left alone...but I think that casting us as the villians of the story or implying that we brought 9/11 on ourselves is very much overstating the case.

 

[Redress]

Who are our "enemies"? Who is it this week?

Terrorists. Where have you been the last few years?

 

[j-mac]

Who are our "enemies"? Who is it this week?

it is not a matter of this week, or last week fore they are the same. That you don't know is a symptom of liberal rewriting of history that has been fed to you through talking points by those progressives that are all about controlling you.


j-mac

 

[Schweddy]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that we suffered 9/11 because we're the big bully of the world.

In some regards you're right. We do tend to stick our nose in where it isn't wanted at times. Somalia and Albania come to mind.

{excellent history snip}

9/11/2001: at this time we were not occupying any Arab or Muslim soil, we had pulled back more than a little from intervening in Middle Eastern affairs and we got hit hard at home anyway.

Even in the movies it can take years for the fat kid to hit back.

Now look at all that...and tell me:
Were we being a big bully and picking on little guys for no reason...

...or were we pursuing our national intrests, supporting our allies against those who hate us, as all nations do...trying to support the UN mandate to feed the starving in Somalia and restore some order to chaos, and so on.

We were feeding from trickle down economics. Tell it like it is. Fat juicy investors were getting rich. You missed the history lesson about economic globalization from the Reagan years.

Personally I don't think we're the side of evil here, call me crazy.

I *never* said anything about being evil. Very bad choices, yes.

We did some things that were not that bright maybe, other things we could have done better, some things maybe we should have left alone...but I think that casting us as the villains of the story or implying that we brought 9/11 on ourselves is very much overstating the case.

No, we did not directly cause 911. This isn't a WOA is us sob story. We didn't deserve anything of the sort.

However, we should look back for a cause instead of blaming it simply on religion and extremism. Bin Ladin TOLD us directly why he hit us after the event and we *still* aren't listening. All we can say is that our penis is bigger. He told us we didn't GTFO when they asked us to. They do not like us. If you force someone to do something against their will, they will retaliate. If you befriend someone then shoot at them the next, you lose face.

 

[Goshin]

I *never* said anything about being evil. Very bad choices, yes.


No, we did not directly cause 911. This isn't a WOA is us sob story. We didn't deserve anything of the sort.

However, we should look back for a cause instead of blaming it simply on religion and extremism. Bin Ladin TOLD us directly why he hit us after the event and we *still* aren't listening. All we can say is that our penis is bigger. He told us we didn't GTFO when they asked us to. They do not like us. If you force someone to do something against their will, they will retaliate. If you befriend someone then shoot at them the next, you lose face.

I agree that over the past 40 to 50 years, we've made some ill-considered choices in our mideast dealings.

When you look at what that region is really like: the dictators, the oppression, the extremism, the poverty, the brutality... there aren't too many good decisions you could make other than "in brief, avoid all contact."

Unfortunately that hasn't been our karma, in part because we have longstanding allies in the region, and in part because so much of our (and the world's) oil comes from there.

You do realize though, that we could pull every American soldier out of the mideast and even end all support for Israel and the odds are good the Islamofascists would STILL have us on their target list?

 

[Agnapostate]

You'll have to substantiate that allegation, considering that OBL wished for the attacks to be timed directly according to the activities of Israeli political officials. I know what you think. He/they hate our "values," why are those evil libs trying to blame America first?! Unfortunately, it is a reality that decades of anti-democratic and anti-libertarian international actions by a series of political regimes will breed dislike. Why should Iranians like the newest U.S. administration when the CIA backed the coup d'etat that removed their elected prime minister in favor of a brutal dictator? Why should Palestinians not support AQ and celebrate attacks against the U.S. when the unconditional financial support for a state that they believe mistreats them comes from that source?

 

[Schweddy]

You do realize though, that we could pull every American soldier out of the mideast and even end all support for Israel and the odds are good the Islamofascists would STILL have us on their target list?

Unsure I agree with this. There would be nothing left for them to fight for.

 

[Agnapostate]

He's one of those who believes they care about nothing other than establishing a sultanate and attacked because they hate "democracy" and "Western values." It's astonishing that that line's still being parroted in light of the evidence posted of OBL wanting the attacks timed according to Sharon's activity and the fact that a more socially laissez-faire country like Sweden or the Netherlands was not attacked, but it's parroted nonetheless. :shrug:

 

[Goshin]

Unsure I agree with this. There would be nothing left for them to fight for.

Have you never heard the Arab proverb, "Revenge taken in 20 years is revenge taken in haste?"

 

[Schweddy]

Have you never heard the Arab proverb, "Revenge taken in 20 years is revenge taken in haste?"

I have not.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'd be curious to hear how it applies to non-Arab Muslims also, when we deal with them. I'm sure some think of them as all being the same.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I'd like to revisit the GTFO of Iraq and Afgan argument.


A big part of the problem is we've half-arsed both of those wars and stopped killing en-masse way too early. War is killing people and breaking things in large quantities. Victory is when you've killed so many people and broke so many things that the other side no longer has the will to resist you, and cries "uncle! anything you say, just stop now please!"

Firstly, does the concept of Crimes Against Humanity mean anything to you?

Secondly, that is a great strategy fighting Germany or Japan, but doesn't work in guerilla wars. You can't mass kill the combatants because they're hiding among the populace. You can't kill mass kill the populace because for every innocent you kill there's a young man out there that's angry at
America because they killed Grandma. He finds that Al Qaeda or whoever is willing to help him get his revenge. So you just drive the population into the hands of the enemy.

If we're going to go to war at all, we need to acknowlege that fact and accept it, and plan accordingly. If we can't accept it for the venue in question, we need to not go to war in the first place.

Or we need to figure out how to intelligently fight a COIN operation without resorting to massacre, like the British did in Malaysia.

Clearly we stopped large-scale killing long before achieving actual victory, because we're still running into a lot of resistance to our goals.

Just how much of the population are you prepared to kill?

One problem I have with Obama is he doesn't like the idea of victory, apparently. He seems to think seeing the Japanese humbled and forced to surrender in WW2 was an embarassment to us somehow. Even worse than Dubya's wishy-washy apologetics.

JMO

G.

What did he say that makes you think he doesn't like the idea of victory?

The biggest gun can't win if you're not willing to shoot someone with it.

Terrorists continue to operate because they have support from a certain percentage of the populace. A big part of the reason for that support involves religious issues transformed into political footballs and used to exploit the believers.

Yes, but nothing is a better recruitment argument than "The Americans Killed My Entire Family And Destroyed My House".

What part of Arabia did we occupy on 9/11/2001? Nada. Yet we got hit anyway.

The military is a broadsword, not a scalpel. When we try to use it as a scalpel, we tend not to do so well.

That means we need to reform the military into a scalpel. We don't need to have a military designed to fight the Russian bear across the plains of Europe, its a new era.

In WW2, we used the broadsword (military might) AS a broadsword. We nuked two cities in Japan, we firebombed Dresden and carpet-bombed Berlin, we killed a hell of a lot of enemy soldiers and civillians and broke everything in sight...and we achieved full victory. Japan and Germany have not been a threat to anyone since.

Afganistan was ruled by the Taliban, who supported and aided Osama and al-Queda. Afganistan is still having Taliban trouble, a lot of the countryside is still under Taliban sway and the Taliban is making inroads into Pakistan too.

Obviously we haven't killed enough Taliban. We're too squeamish, and we get too upset over "civillians" who get in the way.

If it's ok for us to kill civilians, why isn't it ok for AQ to kill civilians?

 

[First Thought]

it is not a matter of this week, or last week fore they are the same. That you don't know is a symptom of liberal rewriting of history that has been fed to you through talking points by those progressives that are all about controlling you.


j-mac

Yeah, the Progressives are all controlling me. :doh

It could also be that when you are fighting a "War on Terror", your enemy is a constantly changing entity. "Terror" is not a tangible object. It cannot be killed. It cannot be imprisoned. It cannot be persuaded. In fact, our leaders decide who "terror" is and how we are going to fight it. Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand, it sounds as though you've been the one fed the talking points.

 

[American]

vauge, you posted a thread! I know it's not your first, but it's rare.

 

[Goshin]

Firstly, does the concept of Crimes Against Humanity mean anything to you?

Yes. If you do it to me, it is a crime against humanity. If I do it to you, it is a pragmatic decision made, with great reluctance and many tears, out of necessity. :mrgreen:

Okay I'm being facetious on purpose. Part of my point is that I don't accept moral equivalence. I am a nationalist and an American exceptionalist. If it is us or them, somebody's gotta go, well I vote "them", so sorry. I reiterate that on 9/11/01 we were not occupying or at war with any Mideastern nation..."they" should have left well enough alone. You wake the sleeping giant at your peril.

Secondly, that is a great strategy fighting Germany or Japan, but doesn't work in guerilla wars. You can't mass kill the combatants because they're hiding among the populace. You can't kill mass kill the populace because for every innocent you kill there's a young man out there that's angry at
America because they killed Grandma. He finds that Al Qaeda or whoever is willing to help him get his revenge. So you just drive the population into the hands of the enemy.
Or we need to figure out how to intelligently fight a COIN operation without resorting to massacre, like the British did in Malaysia.
Just how much of the population are you prepared to kill?

I would prefer to kill none. If it takes killing 100% to get them to quit pulling crap like 9/11.... well, its a pity they don't have better sense.
Maybe someone should listen to Petraus, he seems to have a winning record on counter-insurgency.

What did he say that makes you think he doesn't like the idea of victory?

What I said... it was on the news recently. I don't have a link handy, sorry.

Yes, but nothing is a better recruitment argument than "The Americans Killed My Entire Family And Destroyed My House".

Not if we got him too. :mrgreen:

That means we need to reform the military into a scalpel. We don't need to have a military designed to fight the Russian bear across the plains of Europe, its a new era.

Possibly, possibly.... if there's a better way I'm open to it. Hurry down to the Pentagon and explain it to the generals if you've got it all figured out though.

If it's ok for us to kill civilians, why isn't it ok for AQ to kill civilians?

Because we're us and they are them. Entirely different thing. No, I'm kidding again. I don't want to kill civilians; I don't want THEM to kill our civilians. Hail I don't even want to kill their fighters if they'll quit and leave us be. Problem is, I just don't see that happening...and if the guilty hide among the innocent, often with the tacit support of the "innocent", well there are going to be civillian casualties. It has happened in every war since Agincourt and it isn't likely to stop anytime soon.

If you go to war, lots of people are going to die. Some of them will be soldiers, ours and theirs. Some will be civilians. In a war where the enemy wears no uniforms and hides among the civvys, then lots of civvy's are going to die. If you can't accept that, don't go to war. That was my point.

War sucks. The only thing that excuses it is that there are times when not going to war is even worse.

Is this one of those times? Or should we call it a day?

When we pulled out of Mogadishu, Osama said he was inspired and heartened that we had shown our weakness, and began conspiring to make 9/11 happen...and he did. When we pull back, they push forward. If we just pull out of Afgan and Iraq suddenly, what will they think? You think they will go "whew, I'm glad that's over, let's go back to peaceful pursuits". No, that is what YOU would think, and probably what I would think. The Islamofascists think "Ah, they demonstrate weakness, now it is time to plot our next attack on their homeland."

The people we are fighting don't want peace, they want a piece of your ***. Next time it might be you personally instead of 3000 strangers in another city.

 

[Fiddytree]

If people listen or watch carefully, Maher values decisiveness, but mostly liberal decisiveness, and distastes conservative decisiveness contrary to his opinions. It's a common theme to his ramblings (which gives clue why he initially backed Ron Paul before pretending he never existed when Obama's seemingly decisiveness came to be more likely to be the party platform).

He sees human decision-making as black and white, rather than complicated, because after all, we always do have the option to say 'yes' or 'no' absolutely. Maher has difficulty comprehending that often it is in error to say completely yes or completely no.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Yes. If you do it to me, it is a crime against humanity. If I do it to you, it is a pragmatic decision made, with great reluctance and many tears, out of necessity. :mrgreen:

Okay I'm being facetious on purpose. Part of my point is that I don't accept moral equivalence. I am a nationalist and an American exceptionalist. If it is us or them, somebody's gotta go, well I vote "them", so sorry. I reiterate that on 9/11/01 we were not occupying or at war with any Mideastern nation..."they" should have left well enough alone. You wake the sleeping giant at your peril.

No, we weren't directly occupying any Muslim land, but we had a history of intervention (see: Iran) in their area, as well as supporting Israel who most definitely occupies their land. Whether Israel's actions are justified or not is irrelevant here, since they certainly don't think so. That is to say nothing of the great influence American companies can gain in other nations. I don't agree with their reasons but this doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I also think it's foolish of you not to accept moral equivalence. Just because you see things one way, well that doesn't matter as much as how they see them.

I would prefer to kill none. If it takes killing 100% to get them to quit pulling crap like 9/11.... well, its a pity they don't have better sense.
Maybe someone should listen to Petraus, he seems to have a winning record on counter-insurgency.

We can't kill 100% of them. Even if our leaders were deplorable enough to do it, just about every other country in the world would boycott us. Actions have consequences. We need to win hearts and minds, not commit massacre, which you seem to advocate. And if I remember correctly, Petreaus is on my side here.

What I said... it was on the news recently. I don't have a link handy, sorry.

Well I'll believe it only when I have evidence.

Possibly, possibly.... if there's a better way I'm open to it. Hurry down to the Pentagon and explain it to the generals if you've got it all figured out though.

Can you try to be serious here. Let me ask you, which you think our military should be, a sword or a scalpel?

Because we're us and they are them. Entirely different thing. No, I'm kidding again. I don't want to kill civilians; I don't want THEM to kill our civilians. Hail I don't even want to kill their fighters if they'll quit and leave us be. Problem is, I just don't see that happening...and if the guilty hide among the innocent, often with the tacit support of the "innocent", well there are going to be civillian casualties. It has happened in every war since Agincourt and it isn't likely to stop anytime soon.

Yet that just accepts the fact that with every civilian we kill, it gives them more moral legitimacy. Broad murder is not the way to win, we have to undermine their moral legitimacy while focusing on taking out only confirmed enemies. Look at the British in Malaysia.

If you go to war, lots of people are going to die. Some of them will be soldiers, ours and theirs. Some will be civilians. In a war where the enemy wears no uniforms and hides among the civvys, then lots of civvy's are going to die. If you can't accept that, don't go to war. That was my point.

There's no law saying we have to kill lots of civilians. It's not as simple of a way, but its an option. And I'm still waiting for an answer as to why 9/11 was wrong but cluster-bombing a village is ok.

War sucks. The only thing that excuses it is that there are times when not going to war is even worse.

Is this one of those times? Or should we call it a day?

You're completely missing my point, which is we need to focus on changing attitudes, not the body count you advocate for.

When we pulled out of Mogadishu, Osama said he was inspired and heartened that we had shown our weakness, and began conspiring to make 9/11 happen...and he did. When we pull back, they push forward. If we just pull out of Afgan and Iraq suddenly, what will they think? You think they will go "whew, I'm glad that's over, let's go back to peaceful pursuits". No, that is what YOU would think, and probably what I would think. The Islamofascists think "Ah, they demonstrate weakness, now it is time to plot our next attack on their homeland."

Let me ask you, what do they want? How much do you even understand your enemy here? It seems you know nothing about fighting a guerilla war.

The people we are fighting don't want peace, they want a piece of your ***. Next time it might be you personally instead of 3000 strangers in another city.

Nice use of the fear card. :roll: