WMD, excellent post as usual.
rainjack, I wasn’t trying to be witty, I honestly think you are a stupid asshole not to mention a hypocritical loudmouth as well. You are as much if not more guilty of what you accuse people of 99% of the time. Then you wail on about it like a two year old. You and your close minded Archie Bunker view of the world is no different then the backwards assed thinking of some ignorant Muslim extremist.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Yes National Socialism was defeated and essentially became a fringe movement. The Nazi’s went from dreams of world conquest that fielded an army and controlled a country… to the skinheads. So were the Nazi’s defeated? Absolutely. Nobody seriously thinks the Nazi’s will rise again. Germany was denazified following WW2 by the US Govt.
We’ll never wipe out every last terrorist but zero toleance has to be the goal. If we can take it from an organized group such as Al-Queda to a fringe movement then it is a win.
Today people think about terrorism all the time. The goal should be to shrink it down to the wacko level the skinheads occupy if you want to compare it to Nazism.
[/quote]
The blatant error you are making is not acknowledging the fact that the skinheads, nor the natzis, were terrorists in the sense of the people who are willing to die while blowing up a few thousand people. It didn’t take thousands of terrorists to fly some planes into the World Trade Center. These people can still be quite effective as “fringe movements”. That is what a terrorist cell is…a “fringe group” lying undercover waiting on people like you to let their guard down.
I am amazed, if not shocked, that you actually think this way. The one thing that gives these people an advantage is the fact that they don’t value their life here on earth like any other enemy we have fought before, save for Asian suicide bombers in Pearl Harbor.
WMD,
“Un, we didn’t fight against Nazism.”
Uh, sure we did. It was the Nazi ideology that emboldened Hitler to being his conquest of the Sudetenland and beyond. I never said we could sufficiently destory an idea through armed conflict - but you can destroy not only its proponents but demonstrate that the ideology cannot coexist with others.
By your rationale, we weren’t taking on Communism in the Cold War - which we certainly were. The point was to end the ideology’s status - to combat it to the point it no longer has a serious place in a national government, etc.
We were fighting Fascism and Nazism? Oh yeah, and if you don’t think so, remember that Mrs. Goebbels poisoned her own children because she could bear the thought of them “growing up in a world without National Socialism”. The Nazis thought WWII was a clash of ideologies - and so did we, your revisionist nonsense aside.
“The war on terror is more like a game of whack-a-mole: smack one down and another pops up, forever.”
I don’t think we can completely eradicate ‘terror’, as it is only a means of combat.
“You mean like the ones living in the US and Great Britain and all the other Western countries? Are we giving sanctuary to terrorists?”
Oh, we have - but we’re changing our tune. Don’t forget that it is the ‘tolerance-without-limits’ crowd that wanted to make sure the Anglo-American societies had plenty of space and comfort for radicals to swarm and preach destruction of the very place that gives them safe harbor.
Different story now.
“We can wipe out every single Moslem nation on the planet and there will still be Moslem terrorists in our midst.”
That would not solve anything and no serious pundit advocates that.
“A lot of folks on this forum live in a fantasy land where every thing is black and white, the good guys are easily distinguished from the bad and we will prevail because of our red-blooded, steely-eyed, square-jawed determination.”
You - and others - love to play this card. And it is erroneous. It’s a lazy scapegoat to always say that the other side just isn’t intellectually ‘getting it’.
A better explanation is this - we ‘get’ that the world isn’t black-and-white. The problem comes in any time a decision maker - like a President - has to make a decision. Decisions are always black-and-white, and unfortunately, decision makers have only ‘gray’ material to form the basis of their decision. It’s not that we think the world is black-and-white, it’s that we recognize that decisionmakers can’t be a slave to the varying shades of gray because something - repeat, something - has to be done.
It is convenient to sit around a coffee shop and hyperanalyze the complexities and various gray areas of foreign policy. No one disagrees that the issues are complicated. The difference is being decisive - and that requires narrowing issues down as tightly as possible and executing. If that comes across as black-and-white, that’s because it is - no one elects a President or appoints a general or CEO to sit on his/her hands and just say ‘man, I dunno what to do? So many shades of gray’.
“Does it occur that we might need to be creative, subtle, intelligent, sophisticated? Perhaps encourage democratization in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc?”
Sure - is that not occurring?
“Not all terrorists are created equal. A Palestinian who thinks he is striking back against Israeli aggression is not the same as a Saudi who flies a plane into an American skyscraper is not the same as an Iraqi suicide bomber. They are not all fighting for the same thing, for the same reasons.”
Sure they are, at the most base level. Start with an unquestioning belief that the ‘Protocols’ are real along with historical Islamism, and the Muslim terrorists are really just different flavors of the same brand.
“It is shortsighted to lump them all together and thing that by bombing the hell out of some place or another, we are making headway against terrorism. No one has proposed therapy for terrorists (although God knows they could use it), it’s more of the Sun Tzu admonishment to know thy enemy.”
I think we know the enemy just fine - and some of us are willing to call it by its name.
“To this I would add the ancient Greek proposal to know thyself.”
Getting a little pretentious, are we?
“The government of the US and the West have practiced a foreign policy that is self-serving and Machiavellian, in declaring themselves defenders of liberty, demmocracy and justice in this or that instance, while turning a blind eye to brutal oppression and benighted autocracy in others.”
Ok, this problem requires its own thread - but while we are defenders of said ideals, it has never been the policy of the US to be the zealous crusader that stamps out all injustice in the world. Even if that were a mission, it is not practical.
Moreover, Leftists desperately need to make up their minds - do we (a) live and let live, allowing countries to create their own very different governments and societies, even if they differ from ours greatly because we have no moral authority to ‘judge’ them? Or (b) do we say that one form of society (democratic) is, in fact, better than another (autocratic/theocratic), and try and bend the world to our version of ‘right’?
The Left argues both positions when it suits them. Can’t have it both ways.
“If we are so damn concerned about the welfare and freedom of the rest of the world why are we not assiduously putting our money where our mouth is?”
Have you seen the bill of foreign aid we dole out - including to the PLO? Have you seen our trade deficits, which act as a tractor beam for flailing economies, including Europe? Have you see the amount of money we have lavished on Africa to address the AIDS epidemic? Have you seen the costs of our intervention in the Balkans?
“Why have we not intervened in Darfur, for instance?”
You’re right - but why haven’t other countries? If the EU is truly interested in human rights more than we are, why haven’t they taken the lead? Did you know George W. Bush is the first American President to ever use the term ‘genocide’?
The situation in Darfur is a tragic shame. So why has the international community - including the enlightened UN - focused on the Israeli-Palestinian situation so zealously, when more people die at the hands of Muslims in a day in Darfur than in three months in Gaza?
The US is getting interested in Darfur, as well we should - but where are the self-appointed human rights watchdogs? Kofi Annan? Where is the Arab League, which indignantly pumps its fists about Israel-Palestine, but has nary a word for true genocide committed by Muslims against Christians?
You want answers? Start directing your questions to someone other than the US.
“I expect there to be full reckoning and accountability.”
There is - and was - it’s called Election 2004.
“No whiny-assed excuses were permitted. If something went to shit, you stood up, took responsiblity and did what it took to fix it.”
Now you’re speaking my language. Iraq was a situation just waiting to be fixed.
“There will always be enemies, there will always be those that hate and fear us. But that number will be greatly reduced if we have the courage to admit our mistakes and do what it takes to repair the damage.”
I can’t think of one enemy that the US has right now that was created by ‘mistakes’. I am not suggesting American foreign policy has been perfect, far from it - but the enemy we face now is not our creation. This Marxoid fantasy is pure nonsense, and sensible folks are coming around. Our current enemy - Islamism - would exist even if we decide to become completely isolationist.
And would they still attack the West? Of course - just like we learned in the Netherlands when van Gogh was slain in cold blood for speaking our against the illiberalism of Islamism. The Netherlands is not part of the old Muslim Empire, yet Islamists feel entitled to murder blasphemers in a non-Muslim country.
As long as the Arab nations around the world ascribe to their broken culture and self-inflicted wounds, there will be an Islamism in one form or another.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By your rationale, we weren’t taking on Communism in the Cold War - which we certainly were. The point was to end the ideology’s status - to combat it to the point it no longer has a serious place in a national government, etc. [/quote]
I don’t see how you can directly relate this to terrorism. Terrorism was not effort of any national government. It has its base in misguided religion. Unless you plan to nuke the religion, expect for there to be people who uphold this thought process regardless of how many you shoot.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
By your rationale, we weren’t taking on Communism in the Cold War - which we certainly were. The point was to end the ideology’s status - to combat it to the point it no longer has a serious place in a national government, etc.
I don’t see how you can directly relate this to terrorism. Terrorism was not effort of any national government. It has its base in misguided religion. Unless you plan to nuke the religion, expect for there to be people who uphold this thought process regardless of how many you shoot.[/quote]
That is why our effort is more than just shooting people.
It includes education (including women) and a host of other postive social changes. These things could never happen without our military intervention.
I urge people to go to stop getting all your information from brief articles and newscasts and actually read books written by people that have spent extensive time in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is some heartbreaking stuff.
We are making some progress. We are also making some mistakes. Overall the world will be better off but it will take a looong time.
Pro X,
“I don’t see how you can directly relate this to terrorism. Terrorism was not effort of any national government. It has its base in misguided religion. Unless you plan to nuke the religion, expect for there to be people who uphold this thought process regardless of how many you shoot.”
‘Terrorism’ is not a political philosophy anymore than ‘strategic bombing from 35,000 feet’ is a political philosophy.
So, no, ‘terrorism’ is not interested in taking over a national government, but Islamism - just as pan-Arabism and Baath socialism - is a political philosophy that wants to dominate countries - ie, install Sharia law in place of anything else. OBL himself has said that certain Muslim leaders are apostates that should be replaced with true believing, Sharia-endorsing leaders.
The fact that is indistinguishable from their religion is neither here nor there - it is part of a political ideology.
And, you can’t very well ‘nuke’ religion, but you can fight people with weapons advancing in the name of a totalitarian cause, same as any other war.
You misunderstand what ‘terrorism’ is all about - it is a means to fight. If the Islamists had a powerful navy, warplanes, and other traditional military assets, they’d wage conventional war - whatever would help their cause best. They don’t have that advantage, so they try and fight another way - and they offset their military weakness by exploiting the law of war (targeting civilians, no formal army, etc.).
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
By your rationale, we weren’t taking on Communism in the Cold War - which we certainly were. The point was to end the ideology’s status - to combat it to the point it no longer has a serious place in a national government, etc.
I don’t see how you can directly relate this to terrorism. Terrorism was not effort of any national government. It has its base in misguided religion. Unless you plan to nuke the religion, expect for there to be people who uphold this thought process regardless of how many you shoot.
That is why our effort is more than just shooting people.
It includes education (including women) and a host of other postive social changes. These things could never happen without our military intervention.
I urge people to go to stop getting all your information from brief articles and newscasts and actually read books written by people that have spent extensive time in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is some heartbreaking stuff.
We are making some progress. We are also making some mistakes. Overall the world will be better off but it will take a looong time.
[/quote]
So you deny that our actions have the potential to breed even more extremists who are opposed to the US?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The fact that is indistinguishable from their religion is neither here nor there - it is part of a political ideology.[/quote]
I disagree with this and it shows how little importance you must place on religion. How many Christians would denounce “America” before they denounced God himself? Religion has the advantage by hitting the core values of an indivdual. This is why they are so willing to die for what they believe in…because it goes far beyond geographic or political loyalty.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
WMD, excellent post as usual.
rainjack, I wasn’t trying to be witty, I honestly think you are a stupid asshole not to mention a hypocritical loudmouth as well. You are as much if not more guilty of what you accuse people of 99% of the time. Then you wail on about it like a two year old. You and your close minded Archie Bunker view of the world is no different then the backwards assed thinking of some ignorant Muslim extremist.[/quote]
Hmmm…striking my best vroom pose
It looks to me as if you are the one with the two-year-old wailing issues. Why would you say this about me and then proceed to do the very thing you are lambasting me for?
Time to check that midol bottle again, eh elkster? Maybe your PMS issues run deeper than a mere pill can fix. Maybe you should seek some professional help. You don’t seem to be able to control your rage.
Or is it that you just can’t handle a smartass that runs circles around your smallish intellect?
Uh, oookay, rainman, you go right ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
Yes National Socialism was defeated and essentially became a fringe movement. The Nazi’s went from dreams of world conquest that fielded an army and controlled a country… to the skinheads. So were the Nazi’s defeated? Absolutely. Nobody seriously thinks the Nazi’s will rise again. Germany was denazified following WW2 by the US Govt.
We’ll never wipe out every last terrorist but zero toleance has to be the goal. If we can take it from an organized group such as Al-Queda to a fringe movement then it is a win.
Today people think about terrorism all the time. The goal should be to shrink it down to the wacko level the skinheads occupy if you want to compare it to Nazism.
The blatant error you are making is not acknowledging the fact that the skinheads, nor the natzis, were terrorists in the sense of the people who are willing to die while blowing up a few thousand people. It didn’t take thousands of terrorists to fly some planes into the World Trade Center. These people can still be quite effective as “fringe movements”. That is what a terrorist cell is…a “fringe group” lying undercover waiting on people like you to let their guard down.
I am amazed, if not shocked, that you actually think this way. The one thing that gives these people an advantage is the fact that they don’t value their life here on earth like any other enemy we have fought before, save for Asian suicide bombers in Pearl Harbor.
[/quote]
It’s called opinion. Mine is defensible. I am shocked by yours also. The difference is you think anyone who disagrees is wrong.
In your previous posts you introduced Nazism. I compared it’s history to it’s current strength and the way it was eradicated. I also noted that Nazism exists as a fringe movement, not a world power. Is this something you don’t see? Do you see Nazism rising and being able to strike at the heart of Europe and the US?
I wouldn’t worry about me giving the terrorists an advantage. I want them defeated. I will not concede that they can’t be defeated as you have. You can fear them all you want. I have lived and still work close to ground zero. I am far more of a target then I care to be.
Pro X,
“I disagree with this and it shows how little importance you must place on religion.”
I don’t discount religion as a driving force - and nowhere did I say that. In fact, I think the opposite is true - Islamists don’t seperate religion from government. Religion is a huge part of it. Sharia law - which is what they want in lieu of anything resembling democracy - is a pure extension of their religion.
“How many Christians would denounce “America” before they denounced God himself?”
I don’t understand your question - but I can answer in a broader sense in that trying to compare radical Islam and Christianity is a bad exercise on its face.
“Religion has the advantage by hitting the core values of an indivdual. This is why they are so willing to die for what they believe in…because it goes far beyond geographic or political loyalty.”
Ok, so what? Their mania is driven by a religious fervor - and? Core values aren’t affected by radical nationalism or radical racial loyalty?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“How many Christians would denounce “America” before they denounced God himself?”
I don’t understand your question - but I can answer in a broader sense in that trying to compare radical Islam and Christianity is a bad exercise on its face.[/quote]
It was a pretty simple question. Do you think most true Christians would denounce God before they would denounce a givernment loyalty? It was not an attempt to make Christianity look like radical Islamic faiths.
[quote]
Ok, so what? Their mania is driven by a religious fervor - and? Core values aren’t affected by radical nationalism or radical racial loyalty?[/quote]
Apparently not to the degree that people are so willing to give up their own lives that they will kill themselves just to take a few other people at the drop of a hat.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I also noted that Nazism exists as a fringe movement, not a world power. Is this something you don’t see? Do you see Nazism rising and being able to strike at the heart of Europe and the US?
[/quote]
If their MO was to send young men with bombs into mass transit centers, they wouldn’t ever need to “rise”. Likewise, I don’t see terrorism rising, but they can damn sure strike at the hearts of major countries…like they already have.
Pro X,
“It was a pretty simple question. Do you think most true Christians would denounce God before they would denounce a givernment loyalty?”
I suspect not, but it might depend on the circumstances - so what is your point?
“Apparently not to the degree that people are so willing to give up their own lives that they will kill themselves just to take a few others people at the drop of a hat.”
Again, so what? They are religious fanatics and at the same time political operatives for their cause. Moreover, there have been all kinds of ‘suicide runs’ in wars for all different kinds of reasons.
You’re just kinda running in place here, Pro X - which is great for GPP, but no so much for a political debate.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,
“It was a pretty simple question. Do you think most true Christians would denounce God before they would denounce a givernment loyalty?”
I suspect not, but it might depend on the circumstances - so what is your point?[/quote]
That this amount of aggressive retaliation will be that much harder to truly get rid of because the force behind it is deeper than political motivation. I know, I explained that about 5 times already yet you keep on asking.
[quote]Again, so what? They are religious fanatics and at the same time political operatives for their cause. Moreover, there have been all kinds of ‘suicide runs’ in wars for all different kinds of reasons.
You’re just kinda running in place here, Pro X - which is great for GPP, but no so much for a political debate.[/quote]
Apparently I am if you think our efforts in Iraq are truly going to put a stop to this mind set.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Uh, oookay, rainman, you go right ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better. [/quote]
It has nothing to do with feelings. That’s you’re department, evidently.
Pro X,
“That this amount of aggressive retaliation will be that much harder to truly get rid of because the force behind it is deeper than political motivation. I know, I explained that about 5 times already yet you keep on asking.”
Well, Pro X, actually you didn’t - but a larger question is ‘why does your question matter?’ There is nothing novel in it - everyone, regardless of their approach to the War on Terror knows that trying stop someone that has no regard for their own life is a new and difficult challenge. You’re not exactly reinventing the wheel here.
And Islamists’ motivation is deep - deeper than Japanese kamikazes?
So you still have no point - other than to say that they are ‘harder to truly get rid of’ - which no one has ever disputed.
“Apparently I am if you think our efforts in Iraq are truly going to put a stop to this mind set.”
I don’t think the war in Iraq will ‘put a stop to this mindset’, but I think it can have an effect by freeing up forces that can contain the mindset, ie, democratization and liberal institutions in places that don’t have them.
As for ‘running in place’ - I don’t know a better way to describe repetitive, unoriginal complaining that never offers a better or plausible alternative.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for ‘running in place’ - I don’t know a better way to describe repetitive, unoriginal complaining that never offers a better or plausible alternative.[/quote]
You didn’t ask for an alternative. I think we should get the hell out of Iraq within the next six months to a year. I think we need to hand it back and take care of our own protection even more than we are. I don’t think us being over there at the moment is more advantagous considering I believe we are at a disadvantage should any other “enemies” decide to strike at this time.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So you deny that our actions have the potential to breed even more extremists who are opposed to the US?[/quote]
This is possible in the short term.
We are also adding allies.
In the long term we are giving alternatives to the schools that preach the hatred. This will reduce the numbers of extremists.