xpanda said:
Theres no contradiction X.The fact that they may want to kill you more doesnt mean that its easier to do so.Its much more difficult.We should all thank our lucky stars that mostly these islamic douchebags want to inflict huge casualties in a spectacular fashion....not small time shit like suicide bombings.They save that for their own people.No, folks like me and you have to worry about the big one.Like a tunnel collapse,chemical/bio WMD at a ball game,bombing of a hi rise,etc.These attacks are what the forces in battle today are fighting to prevent by protecting the investments theyve made to this point.Once the forces of Afg and Iraq are self sustainable we'll have two more allies in war vs the muslim asswipes.Those soldiers are teaching by fire and the native soldiers are willing to learn that way.
Sure the terrorists are more angry now then before,certainly doesnt mean they can easily achieve what theyd like.They are being destroyed,its only natural the would turn even more barbaric and furious.Of course youre most likely to believe Zawahiri when he releases a tape than the guys and girls doing the killing in the name of your safety but they are being annihilated nevertheless.
And in the 90s just for the record.....we did nothing to constrict AQ.Not after 1 attack,not after two attacks,not after three...4...you get the point.We were in SA under SA authority.Money flowed,radical fundamentalist flowed,outward hatred towards the US by OBL flowed.Because BinLaden didnt like the fact were there (in more of a token peacekeeping force than anything else) hes justified in killing thousands of people?This is not an argument you can win X.Heres where you give the terrorists moral equivilency....disgusting.
BTW I didnt get 911.....but thousands of people did.Its sad you think terrorism can be stopped by simply "defending our soil".We tried that already...see the CIA/FBI 1993-2001.Didnt work.Then just pulling out of the middle east is the next stroke of brilliance.Yikes....the fact that you think this makes you safer is telling.You actually believe that these terrorist actually have consciences and reasoning skills.This would be the greastest of all victories of BinLaden and AQ.You want to talk about a recruitment tool.You just dont get it.
You asked how the wars made you safer,I obliged.I never said it made the freedom fighters happy to have to be getting slaughtered,in fact common sense dictates when this happens they would grow even more irate,but its one thing to be mad and another to have the means to act on it.
X, Base,
This is pretty much the main focus and impasse of every thread on this board. Without pinning labels of left or right or contentious terms like "appeaser" or "warmonger," and by just stating your cases you have effectively shown the political divide of the debate:
The terrorists attack us for who we are vs the terrorists attack us for what we do.
They are motivated by an extremist ideology vs they are angry and "resisting" foreign aggression.
We must press the offensive to keep us safe vs if we get out of their lands they won't hate and target us.
That's a short list but it pretty much covers it. And no, we won't solve it here. It may take a generation or two, but one of you will be proven right. You know where I stand. But congrats to the both of you for avoiding the usual rhetoric and venom.
This is pretty much the main focus and impasse of every thread on this board. Without pinning labels of left or right or contentious terms like "appeaser" or "warmonger," and by just stating your cases you have effectively shown the political divide of the debate:
The terrorists attack us for who we are vs the terrorists attack us for what we do.
They are motivated by an extremist ideology vs they are angry and "resisting" foreign aggression.
We must press the offensive to keep us safe vs if we get out of their lands they won't hate and target us.
That's a short list but it pretty much covers it. And no, we won't solve it here. It may take a generation or two, but one of you will be proven right. You know where I stand. But congrats to the both of you for avoiding the usual rhetoric and venom.
HEAD, thanks for the followup.
If one truly believes that the Iraqis and others U.S. military are killing on a daily basis truly pose a possible threat to you on your next trip to the shopping mall (or anywhere within your North American communities), then I suppose it's reasonable to conclude that U.S. military killing going on in Iraq today is "protecting your ass".
However, if one finds such a possibility to be ludicrous, it's equally reasonable for that person to shrug and conclude that U.S. military killings in Iraq do nothing to "protect my ass".
Since I'm obviously in the latter group, perhaps now you might understand why I would never "thank our soldiers for protecting my ass" since I find the notion absurd.
If you are in the former group above, your own choice to thank the soldiers for protecting your ass is reasonable.
If one truly believes that the Iraqis and others U.S. military are killing on a daily basis truly pose a possible threat to you on your next trip to the shopping mall (or anywhere within your North American communities), then I suppose it's reasonable to conclude that U.S. military killing going on in Iraq today is "protecting your ass".
However, if one finds such a possibility to be ludicrous, it's equally reasonable for that person to shrug and conclude that U.S. military killings in Iraq do nothing to "protect my ass".
Since I'm obviously in the latter group, perhaps now you might understand why I would never "thank our soldiers for protecting my ass" since I find the notion absurd.
If you are in the former group above, your own choice to thank the soldiers for protecting your ass is reasonable.
Scott L said:
I'm mostly in agreement with your statements here, except that I don't think that, for Bin Laden at least, it's specifically about resisting foreign aggression. You are well aware of his calliphate aims, so I won't get into winded detail about that. Suffice it to say, his motive behind attacking the US is specifically to get a reaction, in order to earn a comparable reaction from his own people.
I think people like OBL, for very obvious reasons, need to be hunted down and taken out. No question. But the means to do so should not help to inspire a following. That is counterproductive.
But, Scott, very nice to have a non-hyperbolic discussion of our differences. Thanks.
barman said:
When we discuss it in these terms, and take the topic out of the box briefly, I wonder if people who support the war would pay out of pocket?
Let's say there were no taxes, and no legal requirement for all of us to pay for services we don't use or don't feel we need. Would these wars provide you the kind of protection you'd be willing to pay for? Would you feel you were getting your money's worth?
I know that *I* would not put a cent toward the war in Afghanistan. Not at this junction, at least.
Would Basehead and the others voluntarily write a cheque to the US Army to pay to have their ass covered?
X ... I take it you're not wearing red on Fridays ...
Funny, there's a guy I know who wears red on Fridays. but he is against the war in Afghanistan. Says he wears red though because he supports our Canadian troops.
One might presume he's nuts, but think about it a little.
I think I understand his dichotomy though. In the '70s I attended every anti-war rally I could, screaming my lungs out for the US to get out of SE Asia.
Yet a few years ago when I was in Washington DC on a work trip, the first thing I did when I had some free time was to head over to the Vietnam War Memorial and read every soldier's name on that wall ....
Funny, there's a guy I know who wears red on Fridays. but he is against the war in Afghanistan. Says he wears red though because he supports our Canadian troops.
One might presume he's nuts, but think about it a little.
I think I understand his dichotomy though. In the '70s I attended every anti-war rally I could, screaming my lungs out for the US to get out of SE Asia.
Yet a few years ago when I was in Washington DC on a work trip, the first thing I did when I had some free time was to head over to the Vietnam War Memorial and read every soldier's name on that wall ....
Scott L said:
As Ive stated we tried the non confrontational route.....didnt work then....wont work now.Even if Israel packed up and we packed up theyd just go right back to the drawing board looking for ways to kill thousands.These folks dont want a little Islamic slice of life and land.They want all of us to die and for the earth to be theirs.They say this frequently.Perhaps you guys take it with a grain of salt,its your perogative.Im under the impression theyre serious,why shouldnt I?.It seems like alot of the worlds leaders do as well.Theyve given us every reason to believe them.
I hate to keep going to the well but its hard to knock a gameplan that has produced results and kept attacks at bay,the way it was intended to.
Correlation does not always equal causation.
Fact 1: No U.S. air flights have been hijacked since 9/11/01
Fact 2: The U.S. military has been incredibly aggressive in the Mideast since Mar 2003.
Supporters of BushCo insist that #2 is the cause for #1.
Many of us note that since there were no hijacked air flights for over 25 years prior to 9/11/01 that #1 is a fact quite simply because the possibility of hijacking a domestic U.S. air flight is incredibly remote regardless of who the U.S. military is killing at the current time.
Even the current TSA responses are likely hysterical, given the number of days with hijacked flights during the past 30 years - (one).
Fact 1: No U.S. air flights have been hijacked since 9/11/01
Fact 2: The U.S. military has been incredibly aggressive in the Mideast since Mar 2003.
Supporters of BushCo insist that #2 is the cause for #1.
Many of us note that since there were no hijacked air flights for over 25 years prior to 9/11/01 that #1 is a fact quite simply because the possibility of hijacking a domestic U.S. air flight is incredibly remote regardless of who the U.S. military is killing at the current time.
Even the current TSA responses are likely hysterical, given the number of days with hijacked flights during the past 30 years - (one).
xpanda said:
X,
It's funny but I'm about to bring up Saddam Hussein to make a point. If you saw CNN's "In the Footsteps of bin Laden," he was fresh off his victory over the Russians in Afghanistan. Hussein invaded Kuwait and was flexing toward Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, at ideological war with the Saudi princes, was angered when they turned to Bush the father for protection instead of his muhjahadeen. That the princes would actually invite an occupation!
Now of course it would be foolhardy to accept bin Laden's proclamations as fact, as he has shown a tendency to change them and tailor them to garner the support of his base, but "provoking a reaction" is not a main goal. It's more of a means to an end. Radical Islamic fury and stirring the pot over cartoons in Denmark, or miscontrued papal speeches, likewise a means to an end.
The stated goal is an end to foreign occupation. That is used as a recruitment tool. But it is their terroristic actions that provoke our reaction. The real aim is the establishment of Global Fundamental Islam. They will fight us until we are all dead or all dhimmis, regardless of our actions.
Killing bin Laden now would be a symbolic victory. But it would have about as much real effect as putting the deceased Ray Kroc on trial and convicting him for raising our national cholestrol level. We are at war with an ideology. Osama established the first franchise. Now there are McQuedas in London.
Scott L said:
The part I've bolded tends to be the major justification for the entirety of the war on terror. I nod in agreement with every statement you make prior, but have to stop you here to make a couple of statements.
First, you can make a far stronger argument that the West is endeavouring to establish its version of the perfect society around the globe. (Indeed, the PNAC has even said as much.) So if we consider our natural reaction to violence by them toward an aim of expansionism, then how can we simultaneously not expect a similar reaction to our own expansionism?
Second, as much as that may be an aim of theirs, this in no way means they would be successful. I advocate a policy of 'retreat and defend' and by 'defend' I mean smack the living shit out of any nation or peoples who would attack us. What I don't mean by 'defend' is to actively engage these peoples in a prolonged head-to-head battle of societies, as we are doing.
I believe it would be near impossible for even a military to take over North America, and so I consider it laughable to presume that a group of peoples who must resort to using commercial aircraft as a weapon - and other unreliable, difficult-to-execute plans - in order to win just a single battle, have a hope in hell of taking us over. While those attacks certainly warrant a response (the initial attack on Afghanistan more or less had my support) they do not warrant the paranoid belief that they will be able to completely take us over if we don't engage in full-blown wars with them.
My view is that the attacks of 9/11 have been used to scare us into believing that our society as we know it is on the brink of takeover, when the reality is that our shores are very easy to defend, and our peoples very difficult to occupy. This is especially true in the US, given how armed the general population is.
If we think it's difficult to occupy Iraq, imagine how much more difficult it would be to occupy the United States?
Further, it's more likely than not that our war games are helping, not hurting, their cause, at least insofar as recruitment is concerned. Again, I see this as completely counterproductive.
On my especially cynical days I believe there is a faction of people in the White House (and elsewhere) who desire a long-drawn out war, for whatever reason. Follow the money for some. Follow the religion for others. Follow the power for still others.
Last edited:
X, thanks for taking the time; good post. Again, we have points of agreement and those where we differ.
I don't know much about PNAC, but I know plenty about the US. I don't think either the US government or its citizens desire or would benefit from a "one world government." It doesn't sound like freedom to me, which is what I'd like to be established all over the world. Of course under some set of humanitarian laws in each country, determined by its citizens, and not some religious or other authoritarian decree.
Now as far as global jihad goes, that has been stated emphatically by our enemy. Some who wage war on their behalf may have different motives; I'll accept that. Then you write that if we just stay in our own land and fortify our position they can't take over. Of course that's correct (for now), but the logic is flawed. As our technology improves by natural advancement of our societies, those who want to kill us also benefit. If we don't invent the airplane........And look how they use the internet and our media.
The fundamentalists first want to gain control over the entire middle east. If they did that it would choke us economically. Then they want to spread out from there. If they gain control of Afg, Iran, and Iraq, it wouldn't be long before they had Pakistan's nukes, or somehow gained access to nuclear material. If in their version of armagadeon we all go to hell and they all go to heaven do you think they would hesitate? Or that your strategy of circling the wagons at home would prevail?
Did you know that by his version of religious law bin Laden has to get permission from a cleric/spiritual leader if he wants to increase the number of infidels he is allowed to kill? And that he must first offer them the option of converting to (his version of) Islam before he attacks? I'm not stating all jihadis follow this rule, but bin Laden now has clerical permission to kill 10 million people.
No, I don't think they can overtake us militarily. What they envision is a form of takeover by threat. The Madrid bombings are an illustration. First you control the middle east. Take over the Saudi oil fields, which they could without our protection. Destroy Israel and replace it with Hamasstan. Destroy India. Kill Musharraf and gain control of Paki nukes. What's next? Blow up New York and tell Americans 5 more cities go next Tuesday unless there's a CRESCENT over the Whitehouse!
I'm not saying their crazy strategy is going to work. It's just my belief that they are not angered by our actions, or responding/retaliating for anything we do. They are simply and steadfastly determined that their way is the only way.
I don't think a long, drawn out war benefits anyone politically. Iraq and the war on Islamic fundamentalism could very well COST the republicans the power you speak of. By they using your suggested strategy instead, they may more easily be reelected in '06 and '08 by those who would FEEL safer because we weren't at war.
I don't know much about PNAC, but I know plenty about the US. I don't think either the US government or its citizens desire or would benefit from a "one world government." It doesn't sound like freedom to me, which is what I'd like to be established all over the world. Of course under some set of humanitarian laws in each country, determined by its citizens, and not some religious or other authoritarian decree.
Now as far as global jihad goes, that has been stated emphatically by our enemy. Some who wage war on their behalf may have different motives; I'll accept that. Then you write that if we just stay in our own land and fortify our position they can't take over. Of course that's correct (for now), but the logic is flawed. As our technology improves by natural advancement of our societies, those who want to kill us also benefit. If we don't invent the airplane........And look how they use the internet and our media.
The fundamentalists first want to gain control over the entire middle east. If they did that it would choke us economically. Then they want to spread out from there. If they gain control of Afg, Iran, and Iraq, it wouldn't be long before they had Pakistan's nukes, or somehow gained access to nuclear material. If in their version of armagadeon we all go to hell and they all go to heaven do you think they would hesitate? Or that your strategy of circling the wagons at home would prevail?
Did you know that by his version of religious law bin Laden has to get permission from a cleric/spiritual leader if he wants to increase the number of infidels he is allowed to kill? And that he must first offer them the option of converting to (his version of) Islam before he attacks? I'm not stating all jihadis follow this rule, but bin Laden now has clerical permission to kill 10 million people.
No, I don't think they can overtake us militarily. What they envision is a form of takeover by threat. The Madrid bombings are an illustration. First you control the middle east. Take over the Saudi oil fields, which they could without our protection. Destroy Israel and replace it with Hamasstan. Destroy India. Kill Musharraf and gain control of Paki nukes. What's next? Blow up New York and tell Americans 5 more cities go next Tuesday unless there's a CRESCENT over the Whitehouse!
I'm not saying their crazy strategy is going to work. It's just my belief that they are not angered by our actions, or responding/retaliating for anything we do. They are simply and steadfastly determined that their way is the only way.
I don't think a long, drawn out war benefits anyone politically. Iraq and the war on Islamic fundamentalism could very well COST the republicans the power you speak of. By they using your suggested strategy instead, they may more easily be reelected in '06 and '08 by those who would FEEL safer because we weren't at war.
barman said:
Yes Barman but its clear their expressed means of destruction STILL remains blowing up planes to kill lots of people.They were obsessed with it in the 90s and still are today.Since weve only had 1 hijacked plane crash into numerous building and kill thousands I guess we should consider it a lucky shot and move on,do nothing.Im sure they could sneak a couple of suicide bombers in and kill a vast amount of people speaking in relative terms but thats not want.They want planes and other WMD to kill thousands at once.Of course the thousands of AQ killed around the ME are meaningless in the fantasy world you live in but any one (or twenty) of them couldve have been the next 911 pilots.The money and funds that AQ HAS to spend keeping themselves in the US headlines is money that simply cannot be used to set up a network of Arabs here or abroad.Communication disruptions,elimination of leadership in the AQ hierarchy,all sorts of benefits to having soldiers in the area and killing terrorists.Its boils down to basics.....its more difficult for terrorists to move undetected and do things necessary to plan and execute a large scale plot with the pressure on the ME.
Of course this all becomes less benficial when the tools that need to be used in conjunction are sabotaged (ie interragation,money tracking,phone tapping,you know all the good stuff intel folks used to backtrack criminals).
This great NIE report is telling us something new?Wow terrorists in Iraq are more upset at the US.Shocking....X and I were just going over this startling revelation the other day.Of course they are,theyre seeing the vision of Iraq as the center of the caliphilate slipping away and getting more desperate everyday.I saw now they kidnap people ,rig thier car with explosives then release the victim...shortly afterwards they explode the car.Running out of suiciders,using women as martyrs,killing women and children,like the ones at the propane filling station the other day.But of course the US is losing.
Spawned a whole new generation it said.....most of the old generation has been destroyed.Its seems like the new generation a even more cowardly than the last one.Then the old one is responsible for the cowardly IED so I guess its a wash.
