Nuthin since Nine Eleven: So Let's Stay the Course, America

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hypewaders, Sep 14, 2007.

  1. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Who has asserted that? So far as I know, no one has. The populace and the government stuck its head in the sand about terrorism during the 80s and 90s because it was something that happened "over there", and as a result groups like Al Qaeda grew stronger and ratcheted up the level of their attacks until they hit us over here and we finally gave them the attention they are so obviously due. So no, we weren't under any "onslaught," but we were being attacked (Remember bin Laden declared "war" on us well before 9/11). And the attacks, for whatever reason, have now stopped (I don't consider terrorism in Iraq as the same sort of terrorism we're talking here). Personally, I'm inclined to say the attacks stopped because of the obvious: We're paying more attention to terrorists and we've built and directed a very large security apparatus to foil terrorists. That apparatus has foiled numerous plots and continues to do so, as last week illustrated.

    What would you have us do? Try to go back to a pre-9/11 existence?

    As I wrote in a previous post, I don't think that's entirely the case, but Iraq has become the center of Islamic jihad, and I can't help but think that does tend to attract a lot of the loons who otherwise might be licking their chops and staring at American landmarks.

    I think that's your opinion. At least, it's not one I've heard annunciated from official channels anyway.

    That's a totally different conflict with totally different players. In other words, you're comparing apples and oranges.

    It has, so far as the homeland is concerned...

    I honestly don't see any justification for these claims you're making for Americans. Who thinks this way, and where are they expressing it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Even recalling also the 1993 WTC bombing, it's an exaggeration to assert today that we were under a terrorist onslaught until the War on Terror halted it.

    Countezero: "Who has asserted that? So far as I know, no one has."

    The assertion is implicit in the meme for which I titled this thread.

    "The populace and the government stuck its head in the sand about terrorism during the 80s and 90s because it was something that happened "over there", and as a result groups like Al Qaeda grew stronger..."

    I'm with you some of the way there, but I would not neglect to mention a US foreign policy provocative of retaliation through those years and before. That retaliation took on a murderous aspect should not have surprised us. That new provocations will exclusively yield responses that are confined "over there" is an even more strained and dangerous assumption.

    ..."and ratcheted up the level of their attacks until they hit us over here and we finally gave them the attention they are so obviously due."

    That they were due, or that they were seeking to provoke upon an entire region? Are you certain that those provoking us do not want to break the status quo by breaking American Mideast hegemony? Are you certain that our enemies do not thrive on chaos?

    "So no, we weren't under any "onslaught," but we were being attacked (Remember bin Laden declared "war" on us well before 9/11). And the attacks, for whatever reason, have now stopped (I don't consider terrorism in Iraq as the same sort of terrorism we're talking here)."

    That is a perfect example of the strained premise that present military campaigns have halted attacks on the USA. First you say there was no onslaught, and in the same breath you repeat the popular assumption that a pattern was interrupted.

    "Personally, I'm inclined to say the attacks stopped because of the obvious: We're paying more attention to terrorists and we've built and directed a very large security apparatus to foil terrorists. That apparatus has foiled numerous plots and continues to do so, as last week illustrated."

    That is a separate apparatus from our foreign expeditionary forces. Several agencies INS, CIA, NSA and others were severely disrupted as new bureaucracies were overlaid after 9-11, and detention without trial (mass detention in the case of foreigners) and torture was implemented. If you are conflating it all as the War on Terror, it's just a dodge around confronting the point of this thread.

    We are now consistently told that we must Stay the Course in order to keep terrorism at bay.

    "What would you have us do? Try to go back to a pre-9/11 existence?"

    No, 9-11 demanded that we single-mindedly follow the evidence to the perpetrators of 9-11, roll up their organization through focused investigation, arrests with deadly force when necessary, due process, prosecution, and public accountability throughout an unrelenting, thorough focused hunt navigating and not disrupting the political realities of the day. Ostensibly going after the 9-11 criminals with armies was in itself criminal. Also ineffective. Al-Qaeda has metastasized as a result of the misapplication of force. Our military forces have been overextended. Our already inadequate intelligence network in Arab and Muslim spheres has been negatively impacted by major simultaneous policy and organizational changes. Legal and Constitutional blowback to our intelligence community has yet to arrive, but such damage is also threatening.

    We have been diverted from a focused and publicly-accountable pursuit of the perpetrators of 9-11. I suspect it is an example of deliberate and thus-far successful cover for this diversion, when we hear the mantra repeated that we are fighting "them" over there, so we won't ever have to suffer consequences here in the USA again, as we did on 9-11.

    "As I wrote in a previous post, I don't think that's entirely the case, but Iraq has become the center of Islamic jihad, and I can't help but think that does tend to attract a lot of the loons who otherwise might be licking their chops and staring at American landmarks."

    There are dangerous assumptions there. First, there is no unitary Jihad: There are extremists for every sect and religion, and these are becoming increasingly active in response to the chaos created by US occupation. Iraq has become a catalyst for multiple simultaneous power-plays. To a less-volatile but still focus-sapping extent, Afghanistan has too. There are particularly dire regional implications to the ethnic cleansing that is building in Iraq.

    As you may be aware, these implications entail geoeconomic threats, because the most petroleum-rich parts of the Arabian peninsula are populated by Shi'a majorities that have been dominated by anti-democratic Sunni minorities under US auspices. With the stakes this high, should any of the multiplying spectrum of extremists decide to speed up the change in status-quo, further traumatization of Americans in American streets is likely to remain an attractive option for the most angry and unscrupulous of revolutionaries. Yet in American popular assumptions, al-Qaeda and all who are angered by US intervention have been subliminally conflated into representing a threat now contained by a provocative new foreign policy, and by conspicuous new airport-security procedures. We've exchanged our comfortable pre-9-11 assumptions about our invulnerability for new ones.

    "I think that's your opinion. At least, it's not one I've heard annunciated from official channels anyway."

    I am not convinced that the totality of "official channels" are presently working to inform the American public about the actual expectations our government had when commencing current policy. Iraq and Afghanistan have obviously not gone according to plans. Largely in response to insecurity over results, an authoritarianistic tendency (more organic than conspriatorial) to manipulate our fears has infected Washington. There is no evidence that our present leadership has terrorism at bay, on the run, or under control. Yet the rhetoric is targeted to promote that assumption.

    In Israel, among the Jewish population, we've long watched a spiral of terrorism, desperation, military reprisals, and popular discontent periodically interspersed with foreign expeditions and wars. When Israel cracks down on Palestinians (even on occasions when their aim is true, absent inflammatory collateral casualties) it isn't long before a Palestinian terrorist strikes again at Israel. And it isn't long before things spiral so out of hand that the Israeli public, including active-duty military personnel, demand a halt to miltary provocation of further chaos, and a new dedication to seeking political solution.

    It's a pattern all-too-familiar in the Mideast, but most Americans fail to recognize the same destructive stalemate taking over our own relationship with the Arab world. An intractible occupation has yet to clue us in, and I'm worried that we will not recognize the larger pattern until the downward spiral into further retaliations is allowed to continue. The deeper we go down the funnel, the harder it will be to come out on top.

    "That's a totally different conflict with totally different players. In other words, you're comparing apples and oranges."

    No, I'm comparing human beings to human beings. The United States has initiated a similar cycle of military campaigns and terrorist retaliations as has for too long been the tragic circle in Israel/Palestine. A significant part of the reason why we Americans don't seem to recognize the cycle yet may be the officially-encouraged popular assumption that an era of spectacular terrorism was interrupted by war, an assumption that our wars are precluding and not provoking terrorism agains us.

    "It has, so far as the homeland is concerned..."

    This is much too serious for a "So Far, So Good" mentality assuring us that perma-war forever wards off terrorists. That's just whistling past modern history's vast graveyard.

    "I honestly don't see any justification for these claims you're making for Americans. Who thinks this way, and where are they expressing it?"

    You do, right here.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    No, of course not. It is a specious claim. There's been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 for four basic reasons:

    1. Takes time to organize and execute a massive attack, and since the bar was set so high on 9/11, your average car bomb or assassination just isn't going to cut it. Strategically, no followup attack is politically preferable to a weak followup attack.

    2. We are paying more attention now. Our efforts at interdiction of plots, ham-handed though they are, must be slowing the organizational effort. Not that it makes attacks impossible, just more difficult.

    3. As far as bin Laden's stated goals (I refer to his 1996 fatwa -see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html) are concerned, it's largely Mission Accomplished.

    4. If your goal is to punish Americans, it is certainly more convenient to do it in Iraq than in New Jersey. So in that sense the U.S. military is a sacrificial goat - there to absorb the punishment so we don't have to.


    But to say that U.S. forces abroad are soaking up damage that might otherwise be visited on the homeland is not the same as suggesting that we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. We would have a lot more success fighting them here, for one thing. Plus, I for one do not want a U.S. soldier to take the hit for me - I think that if we are in a fight, we ought to bear the risk personally. We should also understand clearly what the causes of that threat really are.

    We should understand that our boys and girls are fighting over there primarily because the underlying political situation that provoked jihad has not changed one bit. We still unconditionally support Israel, we still have the tightest connections with the Saudi regime, and our forces are now paying the price of our deadly meddling in the internal affairs of states all over the Muslim world.

    In any event, I don't think there's going to be another attack on U.S. soil. There's no need - we've become self-destructive.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "In any event, I don't think there's going to be another attack on U.S. soil. There's no need - we've become self-destructive."

    You are assuming that no terrorists will seek to benefit by accelerating our self-destruction. For hypothetical instance: A dramatic Wahabbi-instigated terrorist attack or series thereof on the USA, involving fabrications of Iranian or Syrian involvement could rapidly gain considerable cover and effect.
     
  8. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    There hasn't been a single US Presidential assassination attempt since 1981, shortly before the first woman was appointed to the Supreme Court.

    So I guess that means that women being on the Supreme Court is what thwarts presidential assassination attempts?
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2007
  9. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I don't think it is. You've asserted something and want us all to presume it's true. I don't think I can. Your language is too hyperbolic for starters...

    I'm curious what sort of provocation you're referring to here and how that provocation squares with reality (I doubt it will). For example, if any nation practicing Islam has a reason to hate us, it would be Malaysia, but Malaysia isn't exporting terrorists. In fact, Malaysia is being hit by terrorists. So is Spain. What's the terrorists beef with them? Are they still steamed about Andalusia? I doubt the ignorant thugs even know where it is or what it's significance is. And let us not forget that in the 1980s we were helping the Afghans and the Arabs repel the Soviet invaders. In other words, I think your argument, whatever its specifics may be, infers there is a causal relationship between American foreign policy and terrorism. That's just not the case. These terrorists are born of an ideology that is almost an antecedent unto itself. Actual real world events may shape the ideology, but direct it or spur it? No way. They want a caliphate pure and simple. The US could go away tomorrow and that wouldn't change.

    I think they thrive on chaos, which is precisely why I think you give them too much credit, so far as political awareness and strategy are concerned. Let's not forget, at the end of the day, these are religious zealots who are not terribly bright people. Clever? Certainly. Intelligent? Not so much. I also take issue with this tired notion of American hegemony. It simply does not exist, at least as far as the Middle East is concerned. American hasn't had its way there, outside obvious spots like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for a long time. If you think otherwise, consider America's inability to affect the Israeli/Palestinian situation, Beirut and Lebanon or American's troubled relationship with Iran. Europe has always had a lot of sway in the region for obvious reason, and in many cases, such as Turkey and Iran, they openly work against this supposed hegemony of yours, which in my opinion dilutes the term until it is almost meaningless.

    There is no logical problem here, besides an accidental misrepresentation of my remarks. In a previous post, I believe I attributed most of the success in thwarting additional attacks to increased security and awareness. If not, then I'm making that clear now: We're watching for things we weren't previously watching for and busting down doors we previously left alone. It is undeniable that the pattern of attacks has been interrupted. What I quibbled over was you calling the previous pattern an "onslaught." It wasn't, and I've never seen it described that way.

    I don't see how it is. The War on Terror is very obviously also about securing the homeland from terror, and nobody's never made any secret of that. The mention of some of your favorite talking points (torture, etc.) is more of a dodge, I think. And "mass detentions?" When did that ever happen?

    If you think 9/11 wasn't an act of war, that's your business. I would, however, remind you that this sort of thinking is precisely how the government brain functioned prior to 9/11, so it's somewhat confusing to see you admit 9/11 was different and then argue the US reaction should have been a more energized version of its pre-9/11 self.

    Please, show me what law was broken by doing so...

    It wasn't ineffective until the US pinned itself down by invading Iraq. As I've argued elsewhere, we were making extraordinary progress in Afghanistan and then Bush foolishly turned his attention elsewhere.

    There's been a lot of speculation, worry and whining about this. So far, I haven't seen the horrors people like to moan about...

    Iraq has become a rallying point for those inclined to Jihad. The terrorists themselves say this. And you seem to make my argument for me when you say: "There are extremists for every sect and religion, and these are becoming increasingly active in response to the chaos created by US occupation. Iraq has become a catalyst for multiple simultaneous power-plays." That sounds like a unifying jihad to me...

    Again, you pretend this is about American power (with tribalism and religious creed in the mix). It is, but it's more about religious purity. The modern day Jihad movement arose in Egypt was banished to Saudi Arabia and has since immigrated to Afghanistan and Iraq. Bin Laden is a Sunni, is he not? Yet he rails? Why? Because it's all about the restoration of the caliphate and it always will be.

    I agree with that, but one cannot deny their record on the domestic front or ignore the plots that have been broken up since 9/11.
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    It's an exaggeration to assert today that we were under a terrorist onslaught until the War on Terror halted it. The assertion is implicit in the meme for which I titled this thread.

    countezero: "I don't think it is. You've asserted something and want us all to presume it's true. I don't think I can. Your language is too hyperbolic for starters..."

    The War on Terror did not halt 9-11. It didn't halt terrorism. Why am I bothering... I can't top this retort:
    countezero: "There is no logical problem here, besides an accidental misrepresentation of my remarks. In a previous post, I believe I attributed most of the success in thwarting additional attacks to increased security and awareness. If not, then I'm making that clear now: We're watching for things we weren't previously watching for and busting down doors we previously left alone. It is undeniable that the pattern of attacks has been interrupted. What I quibbled over was you calling the previous pattern an "onslaught." It wasn't, and I've never seen it described that way."

    Okeedokee.

    That new American provocations will exclusively yield responses that are confined "over there" is a strained and dangerous assumption.

    "I'm curious what sort of provocation you're referring to here and how that provocation squares with reality"

    Let's just consider for example the occupation of Iraq, and the attendant grabs for the Oil Ministry, Oil Privatizations, foreign private contracts in Iraq. And some associated collateral killing, maiming. And a new exodus greater than that from Palestine in '48. Insignificant stuff like that. No need to mention the recent $30 billion military gift to Israel- nobody noticed that in the Mideast. Right?


    "(I doubt it will). For example, if any nation practicing Islam has a reason to hate us, it would be Malaysia, but Malaysia isn't exporting terrorists.

    Got MILF? KMM on. Like Malaysia wasn't Switzerland for Islamic radicals a short time ago. Were you paying attention at all back when the US media abandoned the al-Qaeda financial trailhead in Malaysia? Come on an admit it: You're a librul sock-puppet, trying to parody Stupid America, aren't you. Nice work.


    "In fact, Malaysia is being hit by terrorists. So is Spain."

    So is Arabia. So is Iran. So is Leichtenstien- (I'm assuming something small but terrible has surely happened in Liechtenstein).

    "What's the terrorists beef with them?"

    Something not halal, I'm sure.

    Are they still steamed about Andalusia?

    Some nut somewhere is. All it takes is one asshole and a little scientific knowledge. It's a good thing there's never any anger at Sciforums.


    "I doubt the ignorant thugs even know where it is or what it's significance is."

    That's the blissful thing.

    "let us not forget that in the 1980s we were helping the Afghans and the Arabs repel the Soviet invaders."

    I remember.

    "In other words, I think your argument, whatever its specifics may be, infers there is a causal relationship between American foreign policy and terrorism."

    GASP!! No fucking way! How can you say that?!?

    "That's just not the case."

    All Righty, then.

    'These terrorists are born of an ideology that is almost an antecedent unto itself."

    Antecedent unto itself... Antecedent unto itself.... wtf... So you think it came out of nowhere.

    "Actual real world events may shape the ideology, but direct it or spur it? No way."

    Would you like some more sand to bury your head in? Join the Army- be surrounded.

    "They want a caliphate pure and simple."

    I so used to hate that when I lived in the Mideast: All those poor little Arab kids always screaming "UKHTI! I DON"T WANT FOOD, CLOTHES, EDUCATION, A FUTURE- FUCK THAT, I WANT A CALIPHATE! NOW!"

    "The US could go away tomorrow and that wouldn't change."

    Yeah, we just come and go unnoticed.

    "I think [our enemy] thrive on chaos, which is precisely why I think you give them too much credit, so far as political awareness and strategy are concerned."

    I can't follow that. Can you rephrase, maybe expand on that?

    "these are religious zealots who are not terribly bright people."

    Sure, any dopes could have done 9-11

    Clever? Certainly. Intelligent? Not so much.

    Can you please describe this significant distinction between clever and intelligent?

    "[American hegemony] simply does not exist, at least as far as the Middle East is concerned."

    So then please explain why American troops are in Iraqi streets: By invitation? Because they have become popular since the invasion?

    "American hasn't had its way there, outside obvious spots like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for a long time."

    Is real? I mean: is U for Rael?

    "If you think otherwise, consider America's inability to affect the Israeli/Palestinian situation"

    You seem to believe that US weaponry in Israeli hands has had no impact. But I've felt it in my bones. I've heard it rattle my windows, seen it kill my Palestinian neighbors- An effective effect, if I've ever seen one.

    "Europe has always had a lot of sway in the region for obvious reason"

    Not so much since their colonies imploded, and they were sent packing. Now it looks like it's our turn.

    "in many cases, such as Turkey and Iran, they openly work against this supposed hegemony of yours, which in my opinion dilutes the term until it is almost meaningless."

    The Coalition of the Wilting.


    If you are conflating all as the War on Terror, it's just a dodge around confronting the point of this thread.

    "I don't see how it is. The War on Terror is very obviously also about securing the homeland from terror, and nobody's never made any secret of that."

    Lies aren't effective in secret. I'm sorry to inform you, but the Homeland is not secure, nor will it ever be for as long as we live in an open society.

    "The mention of some of your favorite talking points (torture, etc.) is more of a dodge, I think."

    You think? You think torture on your behalf does not endanger you?


    "If you think 9/11 wasn't an act of war, that's your business."

    I think it's also yours. We needed international investigators, police and prosecutors in that case, not armies. We went after lice in a crowded orphanage with shotguns.

    "I would, however, remind you that this sort of thinking is precisely how the government brain functioned prior to 9/11, so it's somewhat confusing to see you admit 9/11 was different and then argue the US reaction should have been a more energized version of its pre-9/11 self."

    You have obviously misunderstood me. I have never argued that "the US reaction should have been a more energized version of its pre-9/11 self"



    Ostensibly going after the 9-11 criminals with armies was in itself criminal.

    "Please, show me what law was broken by doing so..."


    Our already inadequate intelligence network in Arab and Muslim spheres has been negatively impacted by major simultaneous policy and organizational changes.

    "[US intelligence in Arab and Muslim spheres] wasn't ineffective until the US pinned itself down by invading Iraq."

    We had slam-dunk intel on Iraq.

    "we were making extraordinary progress in Afghanistan and then Bush foolishly turned his attention elsewhere."

    Extraordinary would have been paying the Taliban for OBL's scalp, then ignoring them (and Saddam) until they went out of fashion.

    "There's been a lot of speculation, worry and whining about [legal implications of torture]. So far, I haven't seen the horrors people like to moan about..."

    Grasp your eyelashes. Lift your eyelids.

    "Iraq has become a rallying point for those inclined to Jihad."

    Right-O.

    "The terrorists themselves say this."

    In deed.

    "And you seem to make my argument for me when you say: "There are extremists for every sect and religion, and these are becoming increasingly active in response to the chaos created by US occupation."

    No, your argument is just more flaccid than mine. Yecch! Get it off me.

    '"Iraq has become a catalyst for multiple simultaneous power-plays." That sounds like a unifying jihad to me...'

    Take away the emulsifying agent (Yankees not going home) and the oil and water will separate.

    "Again, you pretend this is about American power (with tribalism and religious creed in the mix)."

    Who's really pretending? Open your eyes.

    "It is, but it's more about religious purity."

    Both of them.


    "The modern day Jihad movement arose in Egypt was banished to Saudi Arabia and has since immigrated to Afghanistan and Iraq."

    Holy Moses.

    "Bin Laden is a Sunni, is he not?"

    And W is a Christian, n'est pas?

    "Yet he rails? Why? Because it's all about the restoration of the caliphate and it always will be."

    Don't confuse Jihad with Moses, or Bin Laden with all Muslims. I promise not to confuse our President with all Christians. Do we have a deal?

    [Official] rhetoric is targeted to promote the assumption... that our present leadership has terrorism at bay.

    "I agree with that, but one cannot deny their record on the domestic front or ignore the plots that have been broken up since 9/11."

    I'm not denying, not ignoring. Do you deny or ignore the possibility of something going bloody-provocatively "kaboom" in America at any time?
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2007
  11. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    I was going to post this. Whether you agree with the tactics or not, it is pretty obvious that the actions the US has taken since 2001 have removed 2/3 of what al Qaeda was using to stir up support for their cause during the string of attacks throughout the 1990s that led up to 9/11. Al Qaeda has only struck us directly once since then; in Saudi Arabia in 2003, which was before the US withdrew its troops from Saudi and the UN sanctions against Iraq were lifted so technically that doesn't really fall into the "after" timeframe anyway.

    I do think the flypaper theory is pretty ridiculous, though. Most of the al Qaeda we've been fighting in Iraq are poor, young, radicalized kids from Syria, Jordan, the Baltics, etc. who aren't wealthy or educated enough to get a mission in the US like the elite 9/11 highjackers were. So instead they hitchhike into Iraq, take up arms under the rather nebulous banner of AQI (who will take anything with a pulse), and spend a few weeks terrorizing the locals before they get splattered all over the highway once coalition forces or the local militia gets sick of their extremist, carpetbagging bullshit.
     
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Snake and nape, 2.75 nails, blowing smoke, paradise awaits, all you have to do is die for Allah, that is the reality of the middle east today, and AQI is laughing all the way as they send the children into the slaughter, occasionally some one of the Leadership of AQI gets his, I would love to know what his last thoughts are? I will bet it is, "Shit-This isn't fair, some one else was suppose to die not me".
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Hype, forgive me for thinking we were having an intelligent discussion. Reading what you write above, I see you've chosen to act like an ass in responding to my post, so I see no point in wasting any more effort here.
     
  14. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    i think it's part of liberals' inherently short attention span and child-like impatience that they want results now now now.

    what part of "long term conflict" do you not understand?

    this isn't a microwave dinner that the ultra-modern career woman can just throw in the microwave oven for 2 minutes instead of toiling for 1.5 hours for a real decent old-fashioned meal. and it ain't a "On-Demand" PVR that lets you watch any show you want when you choose it. nor is it a short-term hook up that "enlightened" people are so fond of instead of oppressive patriarchical outdated institution of marriage. this is the same with faith. liberals want to see G-d now now now. they can't wait till later. He does not show up on demand, and liberals are impatient (and maybe spiteful, as in the case of atheists), hence they choose to not believe. or achieve that immediate "spirituality" with drugs. there are countless other examples.

    the main idea is the same.

    libs physically cannot deal with long term plans. they're simply unable to comprehand.

    you want to beat a 1400 yr old ideology in only 6 years? maybe you should get a microwave oven instead.
     
  15. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110

    Dont confuse someones differing ideology as impatience. Could it be that We as liberals see no reason for this new "crusade", because thats what it is, its no longer about fighting terrorism its about an ideological crusade. Freedom for all even if you dont want it. Yes, we are the impatient ones us liberals, what about this war and forced democracy in iraq, they were no threat and the people could have eventually overthrown their government and created a new system that worked best for them, but instead you wonderfully patient conservatives had to go into their country, kill hundreds of thousands of people under false pretenses, and plant a new "democratic" government. All in the name of fighting terror, while using terror and creating terror. Just because a group of people doesnt want to see thousands of people killed over seas everyday (including our own) doesnt make us impatient, it just means we dont believe the ends justify the means, or that there will ever be and end in the first place.
     
  16. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    you're talking about the reasons for the wars (which i think are looney, btw). that is an entirely different discussion.

    what i'm talking about is how long it will take to finish that war.

    the thread is about how the "current policy" "isn't working", because 6 years have passed and there is still no solution. it's about how liberals expect a surge to finish the war in Iraq in 3 months, where at least 3-5 years are required at the minimum. it's about how Michael Moore who, in his typical stretching-the-truth fashion, claimed that America has "beat Hitler and the entire Axis" in under 5 years, and therefore Bush should be able to do the same with this enemy.

    it's about liberal defeatism after such a short time, when these things take so much longer to achieve. and it's about the hypocritical grandstanding of Democrats at Bush's "incompetence" given the need for these long-term time frames.
     
  17. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110

    I believe that Not wanting to start the war in the first place directly effects this discussion especially when you say its a defeatist mentality, how can you be a loser if you never wanted to play in the first place?
     
  18. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    It's an interesting question, but you're ignoring the other side of it, which is that you've been forced to play, like it or not. So why would you not want to win? Wanting to lose, and indeed working hard to lose, smacks me as being juvenile and petty.
     
  19. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Noone said that I was wanting to lose, and losing implies that there is a feasible victory possible. Can we ever win this war on terror? I dont think so, with this kind of collateral damage we are only helping to create more people who hate America and our cause? Your assuming that everthing in the world is as simple as win or lose, thats juvenile.
     
  20. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    if you're thrown into the game and refuse to participate you are a loser.

    EDIT:

    good. we're at Square One. now go back and read the original post i wrote about liberals' inherent impatience.
     
  21. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Thank you for shrugging off a point of view as impatience, how about posing a argument about the war on terror, do you think we can win? how?
     
  22. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    "can we win the war on terror? how?"

    the smartest people in the world are having a hard time with these 2 questions. especially the 2nd one. i'm not qualified or smart enough.

    but what i know is that we're in it. and we have to win. and that with enough willpower and firepower, a nice combination of cruelty and kindness, stick and carrot, it can be done.

    but not in 3 months
    and although 6 years are a long time, i think we'll need 6 more. if you look at history, some wars were fought for decades, or even a century+

    "stopping" that war (whatever that means anyway) and wishing the enemy away won't make that enemy stop. unless the entire population of the US are pacifists which would accept any reality as acceptable to fighting back, this war is inevitable.

    in other words, going beyond the point that short-term effort won't win the war, long-term or short-term, we have no choice but to fight it.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,941
    No no no no no... The surge was only supposed to be a summer thing, to give the Iraqi government time and space to work out their differences. Military action alone cannot solve Iraq's problems NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY STAY. The surge resulted in no beneficial political conclusions, therefore it's a failure, and we should leave.
     

Share This Page