Who are the players in the WOT? (1 Viewer)

[Topsez]

I was challenged on another thread that the War on Terror, WOT could not be fought with our Army because it only creates more terrorists. This is the link: http://www.debatepolitics.com/416618-post134.html
Please take a moment to review the portion starting at My Position… The debate that continued to go back and forth was on the other party “defend at home” and on my side “take it to the enemy and defend at home”… Good points were made from both sides but the opposition to my position attributes the Iraq War as a distraction from the WOT… I clearly point out that the names of nations within the ME is regardless because the ME is of one mind and it was America and her allies that separated the Ottoman Empire and drew the lines…

I will concede that the use of the military and HS home defense may not be the only way to assured victory but the war(s) are necessary and one and the same… I would think another method to fight Islamic terrorism directed toward the US would be to spend money on education and capitalism financing within the ME along with an Iron Fist military action directed against Islamic terror.

What do you think is the route to victory?

Isolation with more emphasis on HS and divorcing Israel

Take the war to the enemy

Take the war to the enemy and offering an alternative to terror

I have a totally different approach

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Although I feel that the Iraq we went into was a distraction from the WoT, our actions have made Bush's statements a self fulfilling prophecy. It is now a part of the WoT and I truly feel that we are the cause. (Not our troops, or the actions of the bad apples, these things happen. I mean the politics that sent them there are at fault.)

However, I guess you could place me in the "defend from home" crowd. I dont think this administration has made us any safer, in fact I feel on the contrary. I know there is a limit to what a government can do to keep us safe without we the people making concessions on our liberties.

I guess its my youthful idealism but I dont think any such concessions should be made. I consider my safety my own personal responsibility, and while I still expect my government to do what it can to keep we the people safe, I dont have high expectations.

 

[Topsez]

Although I feel that the Iraq we went into was a distraction from the WoT, our actions have made Bush's statements a self fulfilling prophecy. It is now a part of the WoT and I truly feel that we are the cause. (Not our troops, or the actions of the bad apples, these things happen. I mean the politics that sent them there are at fault.)

Had we left Saddam in power and continued UN resolution after UN resolution to get him to live up to his cease fire agreement don't you think that would have made us look weaker in the eyes of the ME...Iran as they build nukes and N. Korea as they test them? I think it was a matter of time until Saddam shot down one of our or British jets enforcing the no fly zones.

However, I guess you could place me in the "defend from home" crowd. I dont think this administration has made us any safer, in fact I feel on the contrary. I know there is a limit to what a government can do to keep us safe without we the people making concessions on our liberties.

I don't think we have given up any rights at all and I don't feel more or less safe regardless of the action in Iraq. We have a military for only one purpose and I agree with the decision to use it in Iraq after Saddam didn't show the open will to meet his cease fire obligations since he could use the enemy of his enemy to harm us with the WMD's the world thought he had.

I guess its my youthful idealism but I dont think any such concessions should be made. I consider my safety my own personal responsibility, and while I still expect my government to do what it can to keep we the people safe, I dont have high expectations.

I think everyone expects thing fast and neatly packaged when it comes to conflicts... conflicts happen after diplomacy fails when a nation feels at risk... When Prez Bush said he didn't want to trust a madman I couldn't argue that point... all Saddam would have had to do is send out his scientist to a neutral country and there would have been no war... Saddam thought he had the Security Council in his pocket so he gambled... he chose wrong.

I checked out your profile and noted you were born in the Dominican Republic... just wondering if your parents were American's working there or you were a native Dominical Republican... I live in Puerto Rico and we recieve lots of trade from Haiti and DR along with some boat people from time to time.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Of course we can use the military.

It's just that we can't exclusively use the military.
The military is to negate damage that's already been done (confirmed salafist jihadis - the military's great at killin em). However, since it's impossible for us to physically or militarily isolate all salafist jihadis from all resources everywhere on the planet we have to isolate them from resources by other methods. We have to seperate the jihadis from the population the live among.
That's the part thats not a military mission.

[very poor analogy follows]
Not only do we have to bail water out of the boat (military action) we have to dry dock the boat to fix the leak as well (political and social isolation of the jihadis).

So while we can fight it w/ the military, we cant win it by using only the military (or using the military haphazardly).

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Here're a few more thoughts about it:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-t...ts-minds-re-global-insurgency.html#post408392

 

[Duke]

I was challenged on another thread that the War on Terror, WOT could not be fought with our Army because it only creates more terrorists. This is the link: http://www.debatepolitics.com/416618-post134.html
Please take a moment to review the portion starting at My Position… The debate that continued to go back and forth was on the other party “defend at home” and on my side “take it to the enemy and defend at home”… Good points were made from both sides but the opposition to my position attributes the Iraq War as a distraction from the WOT… I clearly point out that the names of nations within the ME is regardless because the ME is of one mind and it was America and her allies that separated the Ottoman Empire and drew the lines…

I will concede that the use of the military and HS home defense may not be the only way to assured victory but the war(s) are necessary and one and the same… I would think another method to fight Islamic terrorism directed toward the US would be to spend money on education and capitalism financing within the ME along with an Iron Fist military action directed against Islamic terror.

What do you think is the route to victory?

Isolation with more emphasis on HS and divorcing Israel

Take the war to the enemy

Take the war to the enemy and offering an alternative to terror

I have a totally different approach

It's a good thing we have a nice, unbiased observer to the debate in "Do You Think Terrorism Could Bring Down The U.S. Government?". :2razz:

Well, here's the "opposing party", anyway.

Taking the war to the enemy does not work, as our intelligence agencies have told us (when it comes a "cause celebre" for terrorists, you know things aren't going well), but I believe that with proper defensive measures, the U.S. could effectively defend itself from the enemy that is terror.


Duke

 

[Topsez]

Of course we can use the military.

It's just that we can't exclusively use the military.
The military is to negate damage that's already been done (confirmed salafist jihadis - the military's great at killin em). However, since it's impossible for us to physically or militarily isolate all salafist jihadis from all resources everywhere on the planet we have to isolate them from resources by other methods. We have to seperate the jihadis from the population the live among.
That's the part thats not a military mission.

[very poor analogy follows]
Not only do we have to bail water out of the boat (military action) we have to dry dock the boat to fix the leak as well (political and social isolation of the jihadis).

So while we can fight it w/ the military, we cant win it by using only the military (or using the military haphazardly).

I understand what you are saying and I also read the link in the following post... I understand the military can't have total success without using tactics like used to create submission in WWII using firebombings and nukes because the clerics have an un-ending supply of ignorant brainwashed young people... The problem seems to me to be the clerics that influence and keep the new generation dumb and brainwashed... they have no competition...

When I apply your solution to the greater WOT where a small highly trained team attacks America the Islam population has little to do with it. They only need a place to train and plan... resourses are readily available... In Saudi Arabia there are billionaire crown princes... half supporting the norm status quo and then the other is supporting OBL and team... the rest of the empire doesn't need to know about them or have the ability to cast them out... the same is true with the clerics in Iran... they use their office to support nationalism against support for terror activities... how can Americans compete with these groups of people who desire the destruction of America and Israel?

 

[oldreliable67]

but I believe that with proper defensive measures, the U.S. could effectively defend itself from the enemy that is terror.

Care to define "proper" defensive measures?

 

[Duke]

Care to define "proper" defensive measures?

Sure: The bolstering and support of our intelligence and defence agencies, and by that I mean Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Canada and the U.K. have managed to create and sustain powerful and effective terror protection agencies, I belive that America can as well.


Duke

 

[Moot]

I could be wrong but aren't terrorists merely disgruntled groups of individuals dispersed all over the world? So how does a country like the US take the war on terror and use its military to fight terrorism if terrorists are not a country or state sponsered?

Terror: Intense, overpowering fear.

Does the US attack every country on the globe because terrorists are hiding in that country? Even if that countrys government had nothing to do with the terrorist act?

Many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. If the US meant to fight a war on terror then why didn't it attack and bomb Saudia Arabia? Or Indonesia? Or Sudan? Or Darfur? Or Niger? Or Sri Lanka? Or Thailand? Or anywhere else in the world where there is terror and terrorists?

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism is an ideological violent act of intimidation by a person or a group. So how does an army fight an ideology? Is is neccessary to use an army to fight an act of intimidation by a person or a group? Especially if that act isn't state sponsered?

A man intimidates his wife with an act of violence. Should the US send the military to stop the man?

What makes the people in the US think it can stop terrorism by using its military and bombing the crap out of buildings and infrastructure? What did the buildings have to do with terrorism? The terrorists would have moved on or may not even be there to begin with. So what is the point of bombing buildings? Did bombing buildings give the US the information it needed to stop terrorism or an ideology?

What good did it do to bomb and destroy an entire country full of innocent civilians and its infrastructure just to catch one man named Saddam? Did it stop terrorism? Or did it create thousands of angry terrorists where there were none before? Because thats exactly what this so called War on Terror is doing.

The war on terror is a smoke screen. The war on terror is a blank check handed to Bush by a rubber stamp congress so he can go and change regimes in any country he pleases, whether they have terrorists or not.

The war on terror is a euphamism for regime change by the Bush administration. There is no war on terror and there never was. Afganistan is the proof of that. Iraq is the proof of regime change.

So if you're going to be honest call the war on terror for what it really is. Call it Regime Change and then see how much public support it gets.

 

[tecoyah]

So if you're going to be honest call the war on terror for what it really is. Call it Regime Change and then see how much public support it gets.

I would actually call it " The War on Islamic Fundamentalism"....seems to me thats what it really comes down to.

I see this conflict as a culture clash.....the rich against the poor to an extent. Perhaps a revolution of ignorance, as the "terrorists" are predominantly Islamic Fundys unwilling to make the transition into modern worldwide change. The actual People of this faith seem willing to evolve the religion into something capable of adapting to this future, whereas the small group (relative to the population) considered terrorists have taken it upon themselves to hold this transition back as long as they can.
I firmly believe the movement for this backwards slide is destined to burn out in time, and that we can help it do so by pushing the people .....unfortunately I am not privy to the complexities of the Politics required to do so. But I do feel that blowing up the people who can enact this change is....counterproductive.

 

[Topsez]

Moot &

I would actually call it " The War on Islamic Fundamentalism"....seems to me thats what it really comes down to.

I see this conflict as a culture clash.....the rich against the poor to an extent. Perhaps a revolution of ignorance, as the "terrorists" are predominantly Islamic Fundys unwilling to make the transition into modern worldwide change. The actual People of this faith seem willing to evolve the religion into something capable of adapting to this future, whereas the small group (relative to the population) considered terrorists have taken it upon themselves to hold this transition back as long as they can.
I firmly believe the movement for this backwards slide is destined to burn out in time, and that we can help it do so by pushing the people .....unfortunately I am not privy to the complexities of the Politics required to do so. But I do feel that blowing up the people who can enact this change is....counterproductive.

Moot terrorism is exactly as you define it... but your approach is rather simplistic when the subject is complex... in my opinion the Islamic terrorists movement started when the clreics took the hostages in Iran, well at leaste they became more organized at that point... The US has technically been at war with Iran since that date... along with Russia, then the USSR invading Afghanistan and America supporting Iraq to punish as many Iranians in the Iraq and Iran War the terror movement got more traction. That is why I always say it was Prez Carter's fault for showing weakness allowing then to hold the hostages as world news showed Americans in gas rationing at the will of the clerics... it was a time of odd even numbers on your license plate to fuel up your car. Those events along with Americas support for Israel has given all different varieties of terrorist some validity in Islam mostly because clerics run the people in Islam... unlike western countries the government doesn't function in most criminal justice in Islam, it is the clerics that judge right, wrong and the amount and severity of punishment regardless who runs the country.

We retaliated on Afghanistan because the government harbored terrorist training headquarters for those who attacked on 9-11... Iran was named an axis of evil or in other words equal to Afghanistan, however they have not directly attacked America to date... they have been responsible for killing many Americans and Israilies using Hezbollah. The reason for restarting hostilities with Iraq were basically because the fruit was ripe, it was time to deal with the problem... there was a possibility that Saddam my use the enemy of his enemey by supplying WMD to terrorists that the world thought he had. Also by causing a democracy in Iraq it may influence the citizens of Iran, who do not support the clerics that rule them to demand a democracy thus correcting a problem of having to deal with Iran militarily.

The best cure for terror is jobs and education... the clerics educate from cradle to grave now and probablly always will if a democracy isn't inserted to divide the church and state functions... We need a place in the ME that has the government operating the schools, where capitalism flourishes and the people prosper without the clerics influence in government and punishment for crimes. Even in W. Europe, England and France, many Muslims would like the Muslim citizens to be tried by clerics v. judicial system of law... it is a problem not likely to be resolved in our lifetime.

 

[Moot]

Moot &
Moot terrorism is exactly as you define it... but your approach is rather simplistic when the subject is complex... in my opinion the Islamic terrorists movement started when the clreics took the hostages in Iran, well at leaste they became more organized at that point... The US has technically been at war with Iran since that date... along with Russia, then the USSR invading Afghanistan and America supporting Iraq to punish as many Iranians in the Iraq and Iran War the terror movement got more traction. That is why I always say it was Prez Carter's fault for showing weakness allowing then to hold the hostages as world news showed Americans in gas rationing at the will of the clerics... it was a time of odd even numbers on your license plate to fuel up your car. Those events along with Americas support for Israel has given all different varieties of terrorist some validity in Islam mostly because clerics run the people in Islam... unlike western countries the government doesn't function in most criminal justice in Islam, it is the clerics that judge right, wrong and the amount and severity of punishment regardless who runs the country.

You're right about the US being at odds with Iran since 1979. But I don't think you can blame Carter, since he wasn't the one that overthrew the Sha of Iran and replaced him with the Ayatollah Khomeini. That was strictly the Iranian peoples decision. It was all Carter could do to negotiate the American hostages release from the radical students that kidnapped them. Thank God he succeeded. Maybe you can blame Carter for not seeing the overthrow coming, but even so, what could he do? Iran hadn't attacked the US and the hostages were residents in their country.

The fundalmentalism in Iran had been brewing for quite awhile before 1979. While the Ayatollah was exiled in Paris he wrote many books that had a lot to do with influencing the young Iranian students and inspiring them to overthrow the Shaw. But the Shaw was brutal to his own people and was seen as a pawn for the US. While the Shaw tried to westernize Iran he didn't really share the wealth of the Iranian oil with his people. So perhaps it was inevitable that he was overthrown because by then the resentment was running pretty high against him and the US.

IMO, the fundalmentalism in the ME grew out of disenchantement with US foreign policy and what the Islamic clerics saw as a disintegration of their culture and values being replaced with western values and ideals. Maybe you would feel the same if a foreign culture sought to drown out your values and ideals. Yes, no? The Islamic fundalmentalism may also have been inspired by the rising Zionist fundalmentalism in the Jewish state of Israel after the Six Day War of 1969. In fact I think a lot of the troubles we see in the ME today can be traced directly back to that time.

The days of odd and even gas days and high inflation had more to do with OPEC and the Yom Kippur War and very little to do with Iran per se. I remember those days very well. It wasn't so bad if you planned for it. But even back then, the gas prices didn't seem as bad as they do today.

OPEC's influence on the market has not always been a stabilizing one, however. It alarmed the world and triggered high inflation across both the developing and developed world through its use of the oil weapon in the 1973 oil crisis. ....

Later, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 galvanized Arab opinion. Furious at the emergency re-supply effort that had enabled Israel to withstand Egyptian and Syrian forces, the Arab world imposed the 1973 oil embargo against the United States and Western Europe. In the 1970s, the great Western oil conglomerates suddenly faced a unified block of producers.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

We retaliated on Afghanistan because the government harbored terrorist training headquarters for those who attacked on 9-11... Iran was named an axis of evil or in other words equal to Afghanistan, however they have not directly attacked America to date... they have been responsible for killing many Americans and Israilies using Hezbollah. The reason for restarting hostilities with Iraq were basically because the fruit was ripe, it was time to deal with the problem... there was a possibility that Saddam my use the enemy of his enemey by supplying WMD to terrorists that the world thought he had. Also by causing a democracy in Iraq it may influence the citizens of Iran, who do not support the clerics that rule them to demand a democracy thus correcting a problem of having to deal with Iran militarily.

Well thats one version of events. Rather simplistic and not neccessarily correct. But if you're really interested in digging for the truth, the internet is full of places to find it.

The best cure for terror is jobs and education... the clerics educate from cradle to grave now and probablly always will if a democracy isn't inserted to divide the church and state functions... We need a place in the ME that has the government operating the schools, where capitalism flourishes and the people prosper without the clerics influence in government and punishment for crimes. Even in W. Europe, England and France, many Muslims would like the Muslim citizens to be tried by clerics v. judicial system of law... it is a problem not likely to be resolved in our lifetime.

I don't think democracy is going to solve the problem of terrorism. At least not the kind of democracy the US is trying to impose on Iraq or the way its trying to impose it. I think if the US comes off its high horse and changes its foriegn policy so its not so one sided in favor of Israel, that might go a looong way towards bringing some semblance of peace in the ME.

 

[Gardener]

I think we are at war with a people instead of one of the tactics they use, myself.

The people in question are driven by their ideology.

We need to defeat both the people and their ideology in order to win the "war", and so our reaction to them needs to be fashioned accordingly.

Right off hand, I would say it is our (the west in general) collective failure to name the people and expose their ideology that will doom us to failure, and the people most responsible for this failure are the very ones who otherwise espouse views most antithetical to those we are fighting.

I just don't understand this lack of consistancy and commonsense, myself.

 

[Gardener]

I think if the US comes off its high horse and changes its foriegn policy so its not so one sided in favor of Israel, that might go a looong way towards bringing some semblance of peace in the ME.

So, you're saying that we should be more supportive of the genocidal because supporting the objects of their insane hatred shows we are on a "high horse".

Heck, just imagine how much easier WW2 would have been if we had adopted this same attitude!

 

[Moot]

So, you're saying that we should be more supportive of the genocidal because supporting the objects of their insane hatred shows we are on a "high horse".

Heck, just imagine how much easier WW2 would have been if we had adopted this same attitude!

Please do not presume to put words in my mouth. If I had said "we should be more supportive of genocidal acts" then I would have said so. But I didn't. Heck yourself, the conflict in Iraq is nothing like WW2. Not even close, so stop pretending it is.

If you don't know or understand what the US foreign policy for the ME is, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to discuss the topic with people who do.

 

[Duke]

So, you're saying that we should be more supportive of the genocidal because supporting the objects of their insane hatred shows we are on a "high horse".

Don't be silly, Gardener, we're already plenty supportive of genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[3], however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[4][5][6]

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

We're good company for the genocidal maniac.


Duke

 

[Tashah]

If you don't know or understand what the US foreign policy for the ME is, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to discuss the topic with people who do.

This was unnecessary. Debate the topic instead of denigrating posters plz.

 

[oldreliable67]

If you don't know or understand what the US foreign policy for the ME is, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to discuss the topic with people who do.

Pretty presumptuous, from one who appears to rely mostly on Wikipedia.

 

[Gardener]

Please do not presume to put words in my mouth. If I had said "we should be more supportive of genocidal acts" then I would have said so. But I didn't. Heck yourself, the conflict in Iraq is nothing like WW2. Not even close, so stop pretending it is.

If you don't know or understand what the US foreign policy for the ME is, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to discuss the topic with people who do.

I was responding to your statement in regards to withdrawing support for Israel. Now you are talking about Iraq, instead.

Please make up your mind.

I doubt whether you have ever read the Hamas charter. I have.

I would suggest you do the same.

 

[Topsez]

I think we are at war with a people instead of one of the tactics they use, myself.

The people in question are driven by their ideology.

We need to defeat both the people and their ideology in order to win the "war", and so our reaction to them needs to be fashioned accordingly.

Right off hand, I would say it is our (the west in general) collective failure to name the people and expose their ideology that will doom us to failure, and the people most responsible for this failure are the very ones who otherwise espouse views most antithetical to those we are fighting.

I just don't understand this lack of consistancy and commonsense, myself.

I agree the folks in the ME are slow learners... they chose the wrong side in two world wars and are stuck in pre-industrial age mentality... they look at the outside world and demand the world constrain itself to their will...

Duke the Iran-Iraq war was a wake up notice that it wasn't appriciated by Republican administration that they made Jimmy go on his knees... they are very slow learners... now they plan to take over Lebanon together with Syria and they will be next to learn they are just acting too big for their britches and that time could come very soon because they don't have Russia in their back pocket... the West and Israel will not allow Iran and Syria to change the balance in the ME.

 

[Duke]

Duke the Iran-Iraq war was a wake up notice that it wasn't appriciated by Republican administration that they made Jimmy go on his knees... they are very slow learners... now they plan to take over Lebanon together with Syria and they will be next to learn they are just acting too big for their britches and that time could come very soon because they don't have Russia in their back pocket... the West and Israel will not allow Iran and Syria to change the balance in the ME.

So what's your point? Are you attempting to justify the support of genocide and the dealing of weapons of mass destruction to such genocidal maniacs?


Duke

 

[Topsez]

So what's your point? Are you attempting to justify the support of genocide and the dealing of weapons of mass destruction to such genocidal maniacs?


Duke

Duke... the ME was on the wrong side in two world wars... until 9-11 the balance of power in the ME and between the ME and Russia was done through tactics of using one idiot against another idiot rather than get involved directly... the capture of the embassy staff by Iran coupled by the bombing of the USMC barracks in Lebanon was Iran begging to be smacked down... Prez Bush stated after 9-11 we will no longer manage ME through dealing with dictators as in the past... I guess they were slow learners and remain that way. The alternative was something like Iraq... I think we did good!

 

[Duke]

Duke... the ME was on the wrong side in two world wars... until 9-11 the balance of power in the ME and between the ME and Russia was done through tactics of using one idiot against another idiot rather than get involved directly... the capture of the embassy staff by Iran coupled by the bombing of the USMC barracks in Lebanon was Iran begging to be smacked down... Prez Bush stated after 9-11 we will no longer manage ME through dealing with dictators as in the past... I guess they were slow learners and remain that way. The alternative was something like Iraq... I think we did good!

Okay, Topez, I get the picture: You are condoning the genocidal use and distribution of weapons of mass destruction! Honestly, Topez, that's all you had to say.


Duke

 

[Topsez]

Okay, Topez, I get the picture: You are condoning the genocidal use and distribution of weapons of mass destruction! Honestly, Topez, that's all you had to say.


Duke

Yep, that is about it... the morons take US embassy folks hostage for almost a year... note they released them on the last day before the swear in... they knew it was coming...

What did they throw at Iraq? Human waves of unarmed 14 and 15 year old kids that scared the hell out of the Iraqis because they just kept coming... the Iraqis feared of running out of bullets before the crazed kids over ran them and killed them...

Like I said after 9-11 Prez Bush said this foreign policy would no longer be in effect... what would you prefer the Iraq war or giving Iran some really good weapons to kick Saddam's butt for us? You can't rewrite history... that's the way it went down. And, that is why the only thing understood by the folks in the ME is an Iron Fist... everything else is weakness.