DC Tom Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Go ahead and waste your breath, time, money and stamina thinking it can be stopped and debating what the definition of "victory" is. Keep living and reacting with fear. 67434[/snapback] The implication - the rather stupid and shallow implication - being that you can't have one without the other. I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how to successfully prosecute a war. I don't spend it cowering in fear.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 That was exactly my point! I will admit, it was a leading question, directed at those who are still clinging to the idea that George Bush is achieving anything in Iraq that will ultimately benefit winning a war on terror. As DC Tom points out, we can't even define what a victory is. How wise is it to committ yourself to a war that will never end? 67493[/snapback] You people are a bunch of !@#$ing idiots. What I SAID is that we haven't yet started to define "victory". That has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry or my Great Aunt Matilda or anyone else. It's a simple statement of fact: you can't win anything unless you know what "win" means in that context. Which points out the fallacy of your last statement: "a war that will never end". Well...if you can't define "victory", how in the hell can you even categorize a war as endless? "Oh, we haven't yet figured out how to win, let's just give up." Yeah, sure...good attitude. Some of you are just born to be victims of terrorism. The FIRST requirement of winning any war is to recognize that it can be won.
Buftex Posted October 13, 2004 Author Posted October 13, 2004 Okay DC, I will admit, I am a !@#$ing idiot then. You have now defined what you said at least three times, and it still doesn't make any sense. My original question was what would it take for you to determine that the war on terrorism had been won. You replied that we have to define what "victory" means in the context of what? You are approaching this philosophically, I was asking in a more practical manner. As far as your implication that it is a bad attitude to say "we haven't figured out a way to win, lets just give up" is just silly. So you are saying then, that once you start something that you can't win (or if you like, can't define what "victory is") you shouldn't figure out a way to minimize the damage the situation is causing? Don't you think it would be wise to define victory (since you are stuck on this concept) before you head into the fight? While you contemplate your navel, your Aunt Matilda and I will sit and wait for the mailman to deliver our anthrax!
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Okay DC, I will admit, I am a !@#$ing idiot then. You have now defined what you said at least three times, and it still doesn't make any sense. My original question was what would it take for you to determine that the war on terrorism had been won. You replied that we have to define what "victory" means in the context of what? You are approaching this philosophically, I was asking in a more practical manner. As far as your implication that it is a bad attitude to say "we haven't figured out a way to win, lets just give up" is just silly. So you are saying then, that once you start something that you can't win (or if you like, can't define what "victory is") you shouldn't figure out a way to minimize the damage the situation is causing? Don't you think it would be wise to define victory (since you are stuck on this concept) before you head into the fight? While you contemplate your navel, your Aunt Matilda and I will sit and wait for the mailman to deliver our anthrax! 67571[/snapback] Ok, let's put it this way. The war on terror will be officially over when there as not been any terrorist acts anywhere in the world for an eternity. That's what Bush meant when he said the war on terror cannot be won. It will always exist. All we can hope to do is limit it's scope.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Okay DC, I will admit, I am a !@#$ing idiot then. You have now defined what you said at least three times, and it still doesn't make any sense. My original question was what would it take for you to determine that the war on terrorism had been won. You replied that we have to define what "victory" means in the context of what? You are approaching this philosophically, I was asking in a more practical manner. As far as your implication that it is a bad attitude to say "we haven't figured out a way to win, lets just give up" is just silly. So you are saying then, that once you start something that you can't win (or if you like, can't define what "victory is") you shouldn't figure out a way to minimize the damage the situation is causing? Don't you think it would be wise to define victory (since you are stuck on this concept) before you head into the fight? While you contemplate your navel, your Aunt Matilda and I will sit and wait for the mailman to deliver our anthrax! 67571[/snapback] Let me try this reeeeeal slow: we ('you', in the context of your original question) do not know what "victory" means. Not for the war on terrorism (which was your question, not the campaign in Iraq. Stop mixing your topics.) The first two requirements for achieving victory in anything are: 1) Knowing you can win. 2) Knowing what "winning" actually is. Until those two things are figured out, your original question is unanswerable. Peroid. As for defining it before you fight...sometimes that's not possible. Rarely, I think. Half the time, wars are thrust upon you, not chosen...and you have to define "victory" as you go along, because events usually won't pause to allow you to give it consideration. Now, I know your answer to that is going to be "Well, we chose this war, we didn't have Iraq forced on us." To which I repeat: choose your topic, the War on Terror, or Iraq. Iraq is only a subset - a campaign - of the entire war effort.
swede316 Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Let's put it this way...we've shown great restraint in this War on Terror...We have the ability to wipe out the entire Muslim population where there would be no one left to purpotrate terrorist actions....I don't remember his name but the Al Jezeera producer wrote an article...Alll Terrorists are Muslim. If the US wanted a quick end to terrorism they would do what they did at the end of WW2. Drop some nukes and keep dropping them til they stopped.
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 The implication - the rather stupid and shallow implication - being that you can't have one without the other. I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about how to successfully prosecute a war. I don't spend it cowering in fear. 67547[/snapback] I never said that fear is cowering-inducing. In fact, fear often results in action, albeit lashing-out action that serves no purpose other than to try to show others you're not afraid. The worst being full of passionate intensity, and all.... And like I said and you, and others, caught up in v.2004, pay no attention to is that terrorism has been going on forever. Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics, applied to the grand scheme: chaos and disorder is the nature of the universe. Define the war and what "victory" means, but it's all for naught, b/c you're NEVER going to stop chaos. The way it's going, you can only live with it and try to adapt efficiently. Then the enemy will adapt, then we'll adapt, on and on.... "There are a thousand hacking at the branch of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Thoreau. You and others probably will not like this, but fighting against OBL and his minions is not what is going to ultimately win the WoT. There are always new minions to take over. What drives young men to kill and be killed for their cause? I'm a cynical bastard, so I say it is all about economics and resources. Politics and religion are just sideshows that try to de-emphasize that the message is about material wealth. Strike the root! Uhh, Iraq and the WoT are two different topics? News to me! So, I guess the above might be the approach to the broad WoT. But for the mess in Iraq, I'll add that adapting efficiently is something this administration refuses to do, with its "steadfastness" and "staying the course." Have you seen the Tony Robbins infomercial where he says, "You can have all the drive and determination in the world, but when you keep running headfirst into the wall, you need to come up with a better strategy!!" Simplistic and yet so many people don't get this.
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 That was exactly my point! I will admit, it was a leading question, directed at those who are still clinging to the idea that George Bush is achieving anything in Iraq that will ultimately benefit winning a war on terror. As DC Tom points out, we can't even define what a victory is. How wise is it to committ yourself to a war that will never end? 67493[/snapback] There is a horrible lack of understanding here, bordering on dangerous. The stated primary goal of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalists is the establishment of a Pan Islamic "Calliphate" throughout the middle east and western Asia. The eventual desired goal is the establishment of Islam, their version throughout the world. Even they admit that "world domination" will take generations to accomplish, however they have taken strategic steps in that direction by closely allying with radical groups in the far east, most notably indonesia and in the Phillipines. Also, not to be ignored is the gradual arabification of Europe primarily through imigration into essentially liberal countries in Europe. To accomplish this goal, there are strategic priorities. The first and foremost is the removal of the Royal Saudi family from power. The holiest of holy sites lie in SA, and they perceive the Saudi Royals in charge as decadent secularists from an ideological poit of view, and they covet control of the oil reserves from a strategic point of view. To accomplish this, unfriendly western influence must be removed from the region, primarily American. In order for a basically criminal organization to work, such as Al Qaida and their associates, a base-a safe haven must be established from which operations can be safely planned and organized. To counter this, one has to project a serious amountof power locally to keep them on the defensive. They are being supported by friendly state actors in the region, most notably Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. Afghanistan was naturally the first target for us. Iraq was the logical second. Why? Iraq provided a tremendous amount of funding and support to many of these organizations. The available intelligence at the time indicated an active biological weapons research and production program (one of the greater priorities of GWOT is keeping WMD out of the hands of the "terrorists" as possession would help them level the playing field, and is also a goal of theirs). If you bother to look at a map, what sits directly between Iran and Syria? What is directly North of Saudi Arabia? If Saudi falls, it's game over. There will always be terrorism, there always has been. Never before has it taken this form. The goal will be to reduce it from a "normal" condition. This will only be accomplished by the establishment of strong moderate governments within the region willing and capable of policing their own trash. Get out of the mindset that this is about Iraq. It's a regional/global serious problem. Pakistan already has useable nuclear weapons. Pakistan could fall as well. Several players have active programs and admit to having chemical and biological weapons. How much of the world's oil supplies lie under these territories?What kind of world havoc can they wreak if allowed to ally under a fundamental radical Islamic banner? If this vision of theirs is allowed to unfold, they will essentially have the rest of the world as hostage. What are the ramifications to the world economy is the "Taliban" controls 80% of the oil, the lines of communication through the middle east and has nuclear weapons and long range ICBM's to back them up? Now, the concentrated effort is in Iraq. What local "insurgents" are fighting there are essentially tools. This isn't about Iraqi nationalism. Step two can not be undertaken with a couple of US Divisions sitting on the ground. In short, running willy nilly through the hills of Afghanistan does not address the problem, Mr. Kerry and friends. Mr. Kerry knows that-apparantly the friends don't. I can tell from his pitches that he's playing to the masses fed garbage by the soundbites. Once in office-if he has any sense of responsibility whatsoever, he's going to have to continue the same fight-which will morph and change as things go along. Right now the fight is on their soil, with us as the agressor-which is the way it should be. If we had been capable of entering WW2 in 1939, this probably wouldn't be happening now. Isolationist thinking hurt us then, and some folks remember their history.
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 There is a horrible lack of understanding here, bordering on dangerous. 67844[/snapback] Is this the only response you ever give!!? If I had my nephew counting how many times you've used that exact line, he'd have to take off his shoes and open his fly.... Sorry, but your one-liner put-downs don't prove anything other than your propensity to use ad hom attacks to 'prove' your point. Just like how you've moved from Flip-flopper to Liberal and next week I'm fully expecting Bush to call Kerry a Martian. But I guess when you can't win on the issues, you go with whatever you can grasp at. What "borders on dangerous"? I think it's dangerous how this admin doesn't listen to what they don't want to hear, how they remove anyone who dissents in a crowd. Worked for NASA, tho.... On Edit: How nice of you to ellucidate more than the one-liner.
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Is this the only response you ever give!!? If I had my nephew counting how many times you've used that exact line, he'd have to take off his shoes and open his fly.... Sorry, but your one-liner put-downs don't prove anything other than your propensity to use ad hom attacks to 'prove' your point. Just like how you've moved from Flip-flopper to Liberal and next week I'm fully expecting Bush to call Kerry a Martian. But I guess when you can't win on the issues, you go with whatever you can grasp at. What "borders on dangerous"? I think it's dangerous how this admin doesn't listen to what they don't want to hear, how they remove anyone who dissents in a crowd. Worked for NASA, tho.... (On Edit: How nice of you to ellucidate more than the one-liner.) 67856[/snapback] Read the rest of the post, buckshot. I was going to finish it from the office, but decided I had time before I went in.
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Read the rest of the post, buckshot. I was going to finish it from the office, but decided I had time before I went in. 67857[/snapback] (Note: The editing feature is best used for quick corrections) If you really believe in fundamentally defining this as a religious war, then you are confusing the root causes of terrorism much as saying that Christian fundamentalism was the cause of the Oklahoma City bombing. The problem is economic, and skewed through the kalidescope of Islam. Mix a harsh economic climate with the West (albeit, slowly) developing technology that will make your sole source of income from your lone natural resource obsolete in the forseeable future. Mix in unemployed young men, who face pressures of self-doubt who then run to a extreme branch of religion that will help them feel empowered again. Why do you think mothers and siblings are pushing their sons to die for the cause? It's the same as families pushing their children out of the house at 18 in this country to make it on their own. But there's few avenues to success there, which after long enough leads to thoughts of suicide in a certain segment. Then you get a group that takes advantage of that segment and makes it a quest they'll be rewarded for chillin' next to Allah. Like Hamas, they probably provide some food, a little money. And the weak minds accept this (I don't know how much of this "ultimate reward" they really believe versus just going along w/ the religious crap b/c they want to fight). An offshoot of a stevestojanny economy is little education. The best thing we could do in Iraq, if it is to succeed long-term, is to put a lot of money into the schools and universities and try somehow to influence the curriculum to math, science, economics, civil engineering, etc. They need to establish jobs and commerce in these regions rather than begging for foreign aid/handouts and the control of the oil supply by governments. Stop hacking at the branches. Strike the root!
Bill from NYC Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 >>>Not an easy question. As I said, I've been studying it (weird hobbies, I know. I've been told already). <<< Tom, how is the spelling in the above sentence?
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 The economic malaise within the region makes for easier recruitment, and fuels propoganda. It is still not the root cause of the current "movement". People need to understand that there are goals and strategies here. They may be horrible to our sensibilities, but they are sound strategies. AQ may be nuts, but they are not stupid. They are extremely well organized, have learned to live and work within the cyberspace domain and are careful patient planners. Their operations security pretty well puts most developed nations to shame. The "no hope for the future" may be germaine to local uprising, but has little to nothing to do with the grand scheme. Once again, I mention moderate governments becoming the norm. There is more of a chance of individual success within a modernized moderate system than from within a totalitarian regime. Do not confuse the Palestinian situation with the overall pan-Islamic movement. Although there was financing and support given to Arafat from Iraq, the two are not related other than a mutual hatred of Israel. Anyway, that is not the current problem. The current movement IS primarily ideologically-religious based, with a comprehensive global strategy designed to get their way.
jjamie12 Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 There is a horrible lack of understanding here, bordering on dangerous. The stated primary goal of the Radical Islamic Fundamentalists is the establishment of a Pan Islamic "Calliphate" throughout the middle east and western Asia. The eventual desired goal is the establishment of Islam, their version throughout the world. Even they admit that "world domination" will take generations to accomplish, however they have taken strategic steps in that direction by closely allying with radical groups in the far east, most notably indonesia and in the Phillipines. Also, not to be ignored is the gradual arabification of Europe primarily through imigration into essentially liberal countries in Europe. To accomplish this goal, there are strategic priorities. The first and foremost is the removal of the Royal Saudi family from power. The holiest of holy sites lie in SA, and they perceive the Saudi Royals in charge as decadent secularists from an ideological poit of view, and they covet control of the oil reserves from a strategic point of view. To accomplish this, unfriendly western influence must be removed from the region, primarily American. In order for a basically criminal organization to work, such as Al Qaida and their associates, a base-a safe haven must be established from which operations can be safely planned and organized. To counter this, one has to project a serious amountof power locally to keep them on the defensive. They are being supported by friendly state actors in the region, most notably Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. Afghanistan was naturally the first target for us. Iraq was the logical second. Why? Iraq provided a tremendous amount of funding and support to many of these organizations. The available intelligence at the time indicated an active biological weapons research and production program (one of the greater priorities of GWOT is keeping WMD out of the hands of the "terrorists" as possession would help them level the playing field, and is also a goal of theirs). If you bother to look at a map, what sits directly between Iran and Syria? What is directly North of Saudi Arabia? If Saudi falls, it's game over. There will always be terrorism, there always has been. Never before has it taken this form. The goal will be to reduce it from a "normal" condition. This will only be accomplished by the establishment of strong moderate governments within the region willing and capable of policing their own trash. Get out of the mindset that this is about Iraq. It's a regional/global serious problem. Pakistan already has useable nuclear weapons. Pakistan could fall as well. Several players have active programs and admit to having chemical and biological weapons. How much of the world's oil supplies lie under these territories?What kind of world havoc can they wreak if allowed to ally under a fundamental radical Islamic banner? If this vision of theirs is allowed to unfold, they will essentially have the rest of the world as hostage. What are the ramifications to the world economy is the "Taliban" controls 80% of the oil, the lines of communication through the middle east and has nuclear weapons and long range ICBM's to back them up? Now, the concentrated effort is in Iraq. What local "insurgents" are fighting there are essentially tools. This isn't about Iraqi nationalism. Step two can not be undertaken with a couple of US Divisions sitting on the ground. In short, running willy nilly through the hills of Afghanistan does not address the problem, Mr. Kerry and friends. Mr. Kerry knows that-apparantly the friends don't. I can tell from his pitches that he's playing to the masses fed garbage by the soundbites. Once in office-if he has any sense of responsibility whatsoever, he's going to have to continue the same fight-which will morph and change as things go along. Right now the fight is on their soil, with us as the agressor-which is the way it should be. If we had been capable of entering WW2 in 1939, this probably wouldn't be happening now. Isolationist thinking hurt us then, and some folks remember their history. 67844[/snapback] This is where I have a hard time voting in this election. I *think* that this administration is operating under your above scenario, and I think it is sound strategy. However, that's not what they say, is it? I've never heard them articulate anything close to what you've just laid out for us. The things we hear are: 1. Saddam has stockpiles of WMD, and is an imminent threat, then 2. Saddam has stockpiles of WMD, and will give them to terrorists, then 3. Saddam was a brutal dictator, and needed to be ousted, even if 1 and 2 were not true, then 4. Saddam had the capability of re-constituting a WMD program in the future, at some unspecified date, so he had to go, even if 1 and 2 weren't true. If they really believed that Iraq has all of the importance strategically (militarily, economically, and geographically) that you say it does (and I think that it does), why don't they articulate this view of foreign policy to the people? Why do they constantly make themselves look silly with all of that 1-4 stuff? It seems that there are two options, none of which is appealing in my eyes: 1. They really believed 1 (and 2,3 and 4 are just spin after the fact), and got 1,000 of our boys killed (and 10s of 1,000's of Iraqi civilians killed) on a mistake OR 2. They didn't really believe 1 (and by extension 2,3 or 4 after the fact), they actually have the foriegn policy of the above statement by BIB, and lied to the people because they didn't think that they would support it. Now, if it's the former, that's definitely something to lose your job over. If it's the latter, it's also probably something you should lose your job over, BUT, it seems like the actual strategy is sound, it's just the execution of the strategy which is wrong. I tend to think it's the latter, but I can't know for sure, because they articulate the first message, not the second. Thoughts?
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 I've outlined basically the primmer. This is a tremendously complex and multi-layered situation. It is very difficult to articulate to the American public, who for the most part politically are very narrowly focused and accustomed to receiving their information in very small doses. The WMD scenario was/is sound. right now, the most dangerous scenario is AQ either procuring or developing their own stockpile of WMD. Look how much damage they can do with 3-4 Boeings. In the months/weeks leading up to the invasion there was what looked like very sound, accurate information as to the types, locations and amounts of stockpiled Iraqi WMD. About two years ago, I was earmarked to lead one of the teams charged with exploiting the weapons sites-collecting and disposing of what was thought to be on-hand. I had a portfolio of locations complete with suspected types and amounts of material. Why? I had to plan for the logistics of getting the weapons from point A to point B for their ultimate disposal. If you knew what you were looking at, there would have been little doubt in your mind that there was a serious problem. I'm an operations person, not an intell analyst. I have little knowledge of how this info was put together. But you better believe it looked "good". From what I know of this business, there is no way this was a fabrication for political purposes. This was info that came from somewhere. I think this was a palatable "reason" for the invasion, an important primary cause. The WMD, however, are just one of several reasons to be there and continue to stay there. You also have to understand that there is a lot of information out there that the news organizations, and by extension the public, are not going to be privy to. That doesn't help the explanation "cause".
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 1. They really believed 1 (and 2,3 and 4 are just spin after the fact), and got 1,000 of our boys killed (and 10s of 1,000's of Iraqi civilians killed) on a mistake 67926[/snapback] And BTW, destroyed the US's credibility for ever again saying "X is a dangerous regime/group that is developing WMD" w/o having to show them classified material to get them to accept it. Since this is a global war, why is our leader lying or not admitting that it was wrong about the WMD and that it won't happen again. I'm not a fan of Saddam, but that's not the point. They're not addressing that the Intel was wrong, and instead are providing a litany of excuses, one after another, as to why it was proper, after the fact. What about Iran, where the leader is democratically elected? We can't exactly invade there to provide them a democracy. Good luck forming a broad coalition for when there isn't a dictator wearing a funny hat. Either way, the days are gone when other countries could take what we say at face value. That is yet another reason why we need someone else.
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 The economic malaise within the region makes for easier recruitment, and fuels propoganda. It is still not the root cause of the current "movement". People need to understand that there are goals and strategies here. They may be horrible to our sensibilities, but they are sound strategies. AQ may be nuts, but they are not stupid. They are extremely well organized, have learned to live and work within the cyberspace domain and are careful patient planners. Their operations security pretty well puts most developed nations to shame. The "no hope for the future" may be germaine to local uprising, but has little to nothing to do with the grand scheme. Once again, I mention moderate governments becoming the norm. There is more of a chance of individual success within a modernized moderate system than from within a totalitarian regime. Do not confuse the Palestinian situation with the overall pan-Islamic movement. Although there was financing and support given to Arafat from Iraq, the two are not related other than a mutual hatred of Israel. Anyway, that is not the current problem. The current movement IS primarily ideologically-religious based, with a comprehensive global strategy designed to get their way. 67902[/snapback] 'Scuse, but doesn't AQ go breasts-up when their recruiting pool dries up? I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe it is economics, which is rooted in human behavior and choice, that is the root problem. The opportunity cost of blowing oneself up looks pretty crappy when you've got a good, productive job and a family who doesn't see their children as a liability and another mouth to feed. AQ and the like simply cloud it all through Islam and social values. I know they're stupid, but I don't think even their minions believe we're fighting them b/c they eat dogs or wipe with their left hands....
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 'Scuse, but doesn't AQ go breasts-up when their recruiting pool dries up? I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe it is economics, which is rooted in human behavior and choice, that is the root problem. The opportunity cost of blowing oneself up looks pretty crappy when you've got a good, productive job and a family who doesn't see their children as a liability and another mouth to feed. AQ and the like simply cloud it all through Islam and social values. I know they're stupid, but I don't think even their minions believe we're fighting them b/c they eat dogs or wipe with their left hands.... 68024[/snapback] It does not take many operatives to conduct a strategic mission, such as 9/11. If you look into the backgrounds of the majority of the principles-they were not destitute. Several were well off. The mass suicide bomber crap is essentially a diversion, a ready means to counter precision guided US munitions and a psychological tool. They do though, contribute tactically part of a greater effort. No matter how you modernize and equalize, there are still going to be available and willing recruits ready to join the movement. In certain areas, this ideology is taught from early childhood and economic prosperity is not going to change an entrenched mindset to a significant degree. Another thing being missed here is the tactical methods being used in different theaters of operations. I can not go into the details of how AQ plans and conducts their operations, but I will say a significant change is that recently, the more successful attacks outside the middle east have not been conducted by suicidal operatives. They make for ready guided missiles in a desperation campaign within Iraq but that's pretty well it. The face of the war is once again changing.
GG Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 If you really believe in fundamentally defining this as a religious war, then you are confusing the root causes of terrorism much as saying that Christian fundamentalism was the cause of the Oklahoma City bombing. The problem is economic, and skewed through the kalidescope of Islam. Mix a harsh economic climate with the West (albeit, slowly) developing technology that will make your sole source of income from your lone natural resource obsolete in the forseeable future. Mix in unemployed young men, who face pressures of self-doubt who then run to a extreme branch of religion that will help them feel empowered again. Why do you think mothers and siblings are pushing their sons to die for the cause? It's the same as families pushing their children out of the house at 18 in this country to make it on their own. But there's few avenues to success there, which after long enough leads to thoughts of suicide in a certain segment. ...... 67864[/snapback] The old theory that suicide bombers are uneducated aloof loners is being disproven. More and more, they are coming from the middle of the society, and disenfranchisement may be their leading impetus to join the fight. The question I have for your logic is that since you acknowledge a major problem facing the future of an average Arab, what is your solution? Do you honestly think that sitting down with the despots and laying out the untenable situation they're facing is going to make them implement reforms? Or do we twist in the wreckage of blzrul's convoluted logic where forcing a change of civilization is obviously wrong, but so are Saud's moves to continue curtailing women's rights? Please, I've been asking for this answer for over a year now. If you don't agree with the neocon strategy of taking the fight to the Mid East, forcing a change in the region, and stabilizing the supply of one of the (if not the) biggest underpinnings of the global economy - what's the REALISTIC alternative?
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 We as a whole are our own worst enemy. None of this is politically correct, and the country is trying to find a way to make it that way. Not going to happen folks. You can't wish or soundbite it away. It's war, a very different kind of war and it's here. Rhetoric is not going to solve it. Playing footsies with the UN is not going to solve it-since they are complicit in it. We have to look out for our National interest whether the rest of the world likes it or not.
Recommended Posts