12-28-2006, 09:45 AM | #41 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free, happy, drunk and sincere
Posts: 346
|
Quote:
Unless you defeat their ideal, it really doesn't matter how many terrorists you kill. Could America be conquered by the simple killing of its soldiers? perhaps the death of the American ideal would be necessary? Shall we....? Finn
__________________
Audaces fortuna juvat |
|
12-28-2006, 11:59 AM | #42 | ||
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
Quote:
Anyhow, the point is not to eliminate the terrorist ideal, because that's not realistic. It's an entirely different goal. You see, according to that logic, we shouldn't have police, either, because no matter how many criminals are imprisoned, the only way we'll beat crime is by defeating the criminal "ideal". And yet we continue to have police, and crime is not rampant everywhere. Why? It's because we're rendering the criminals incapable of causing harm. And that's exactly what the goal of the WoT is: to render the terrorists incapable of causing massive destruction.
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
||
12-28-2006, 02:04 PM | #43 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
So what good would "whuppin" the viet Cong's ass have done in the long run anyway? Didn't we just normalize trade relations with them recently? The better good, for all the soldiers that were messed up, maimed, or died, would have been to have never gone there in the first place....
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
|
12-28-2006, 06:32 PM | #44 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Yeah, I'm sure the war in Vietnam was going just fine until the darn media painted it in a bad light.
Anyway, I don't think a war on terror can be won. I believe it's the wrong approach, and the war in Iraq, while good things have been achieved, has not weakened any terrorist group anywhere in the slightest. I would argue that it has given some terrorist groups more strength, as war and civilian casualties cause mistrust, poverty, hardship, and instability, all of which increase the ability of terrorist groups to exploit people. Recently, the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq (2'952 [source]) has exceeded the number of people killed in the terrorist attack of 9/11 (2'752 [source]). Deaths of civilians in Iraq is estimated between 51 and 56 thousand [source]. The USA is not safer than it was 5 years ago. I would conclude that a war on terror is ineffective.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-28-2006, 08:53 PM | #45 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Silly Nurv, we'd already concluded that on page 1.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
12-29-2006, 02:46 PM | #46 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
US citizens are not willing to pay any price for victories, nowadays. So we don't win victories. It's as simple as that, and that's why I think we'll lose this war in Iraq. The US citizens will demand we pull out, and perhaps will elect a president who will pull us out early. We should stay until the Iraqi troops can defend the security and fight this war on their own, however. That goal is not an impossible one to achieve. Their numbers and training have been constantly improving, in spite of the massive numbers of attacks they are experiencing. There are problems in those forces too. In some places, they support milias and there is corruption and such. However, overall they are improving constantly. If we can wait until they are in a position, in numbers and training, to take over security, then we may yet pull off a success in Iraq. That takes patience, though. Quote:
The big fear was that Saddam would give those weapons to terrorist groups. He did have connections with many terrorist groups that had been responsible for killing many US citizens before, though apparently there wasn't much of a link between them and Al'Qaeda, like it was originally believed. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would have continued to secretly produce illegal weapons and may have given them secretly to terrorist groups. So we're left with the dilemma now that we always had. Attacking Iraq has increased terrorism, because it makes the US again look like an aggressor against the Muslim world, but holding back and not attacking Iraq would have allowed Saddam to produce more WMDs.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||
12-30-2006, 06:10 PM | #47 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Lief doesn't seem to think so though. I think you raise excellent points Lief. However, I'm not disputing whether or not attacking Iraq was necessary. I've never been able to sort out my own feelings on that one. Attacking Iraq certainly halted any weopens program that Saddam had going, thus depriving terrorist organisations of a possible source for weopens. However, it gave strength to terrorists in other ways by increasing violence and instability in the area, etc. So I don't think attacking Iraq really achieved anything. The one bright point is that Iraq was able to try Saddam Hussein for ordering the use of chemical weopens against Kurds, and other crimes. This is an interesting article about Saddam Hussein's life.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
01-01-2007, 03:33 AM | #48 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
I see it as having been a lose-lose situation. Stay out of Iraq, and based upon our best intelligence of the time, we would have been allowing Islamic extremist terrorist groups that have already killed American civilians access to large quantities of deadly WMDs. Go into Iraq, and we create the impression that we're at war with Islam (if Al'Qaeda and other extremists play their cards right, which so far they are), so we increase the terrorism. I view the whole fight as essentially battling a hydra. Let it go, and it'll eat you. The WMDs will get you. Attack and cut off a head, however, and two heads grow back in its place. So it's lose-lose. The choice that's left to us is which of the bad options is our best option.
I personally don't care for the term "war on terror" though, because it's too broad and simplistic. It throws together all sorts of situations and treats them as the same, when many of them are not. There also isn't any single accepted definition of terrorism. Nations call their opponents terrorists all the time now. Also, some terrorists may have valid complaints, but blacklisting them under the label "terrorists," which automatically indicates to people that they are evil keeps people from understanding the problem, and failing understanding it, keeps them from solving it. I very, very strongly agree with British MI5's chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who said, "My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaeda has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended." She is absolutely right, and I'm glad that the US intelligence services also seem to understand this. I say that based upon the (I think leaked) contents of a memo from sixteen US intelligence agencies, which described the sources of Islamic terrorism.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-01-2007 at 03:43 AM. |
01-07-2007, 09:52 PM | #49 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
I completely agree with you Lief. The decision had to be made whether or not to go to Iraq, and they were both bad options.
Going to Iraq and then screwing up royally was definitely the worse option of the two. I don't know if going to Iraq and not screwing it all up would have been the best or not. Maybe it would have been.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-07-2007, 10:18 PM | #50 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
I think any intelligent person would have realized that going into Iraq and not screwing things up was an impossibility. It was a major reason why Bush senior did not take out Saddam when he could have. Only a brutal dictator could keep the muslim factions at bay, something we will discover eventually.
The mistake was Bush junior not listening to those who knew better. On WMDs, the former Soviet Union states have been and will continue to be the source for groups to obtain them. A much greater risk than Iraq ever would have been. Even if they built a bomb or two. And let's not forget that Pakistan is nuclear, and has a very large faction of muslim fundamentalists who might come back into power at any time. The only real solution is to work on changing the things that lead to terrorism in the first place. Destitute and oppressed populations under dictatorships supported monetarily and militarily by the West. Millions who glorify anyone willing to take on that oppression. Give them something to live for and I think you will find them less willing to give up their own lives. Remember, technology doesn't stop. One day a nuclear device will be no bigger or harder to obtain than a handgun. In the true longrun, we can't stop the spread of WMDs, it's inevitable, the only thing we can control is people's willingness to use them. Think on the old NRA saying: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
01-10-2007, 12:46 AM | #51 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
I agree with that. I'd also amend the foreign policy of installing dicatators sympathetic with American goals. Dictators like Saddam Hussein himself.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-10-2007, 01:25 AM | #52 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
In Egypt, you'd have the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical extremist group that has been responsible for many terrorist murders in the past, getting a lot of political power. Hamas rulership is the result of free elections in the Palestinian territories. What we should do regarding spreading freedom in the Middle East isn't really an easy and simple question. And most of these regimes we've propped up were propped up in the Cold War. It was necessary at that time to support allies against the Soviet Union, nasty dictators though they might have been. If we hadn't done that, the Soviet Union would have done a lot more damage to a lot more people, and it would have posed a far greater threat to the world's security. The Cold War was a worldwide conflict. I have trouble knowing what the right course is, regarding freedom in the Middle East. Give freedom and you give power to radicals and alienate allies in the War on Terror. So really, our efforts to spread democracy are working against the West, peace and security. It seems to me that spreading democracy is empowering extremism, which might in turn squash democracy all over again.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-10-2007 at 01:27 AM. |
|
01-10-2007, 02:24 PM | #53 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Well how you deal with that is you hold everyone to roughly the same standard. What we are seeing now is a backlash against age old policies of installing and supporting dictators and tyrants because it served our purposes at the time. Of course when democracy is finally allowed youll get things like Hammas and Hezbollah getting more political power in retaliation. We would be foolish to think otherwise. But you don’t just keep installing dictators because of this. What you do is hold BOTH the dictators like Hussein to account for their actions like we did when he invaded Kuwait AND the extremists, elected or not, when they do things the world body holds as unacceptable (like protect al Quaeda within their borders).
We are in danger now of going down this road again with Musharraf in Pakistan. He is hated by a significant portion of his population although I certainly wouldn’t describe him at this point as a “dictator”. And of course we are still suffering from the mess we made of Iran in the 50’s/60’s/70’s. They still hate us for that. And of course now they want nukes…
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
01-10-2007, 03:51 PM | #54 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Do you support our policy of seeking to spread democratic reform in the Middle East?
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
01-10-2007, 04:30 PM | #55 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Not the way Bush is doing it.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
01-10-2007, 04:33 PM | #56 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
I agree with IRex - installing a dictator does not help promote peace or democracy. Supporting a democratically elected leader in another country would help.
I support the promotion of democracy in the Middle-east and around the world. I do not support the current American policy of implementing this idea, which seems to be attacking and occupying a country, not relieving their forces soon or often enough, then having PR nightmares like Abu Grahib, having American contractors awarded most of the rebuilding contracts, and having civilian casualties of over 50'000 people. While Saddam Hussein has been brought to justice* and a democratic government has been elected in Iraq, there are still a great deal of problems. Some are not the USA's fault. But some are. Abu Grahib should never have happened, it's no wonder no one trusts American forces in Iraq. This is unfortunate, as it's very important for the occupying forces to work with the people, as they don't really want to occupy the country, but rather, support the newly minted democratic government. (*I would rather see Saddam rotting away in a jail somewhere rather than hanged for two reasons. Mainly, I do not agree with the death penalty in any country. Also, this may incite more violence among his supporters. However, he was an Iraqi, tried and convicted in an Iraqi court, so how I feel about it has no bearing. As much as I don't like it, that is the law in Iraq.)
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 01-10-2007 at 04:36 PM. |
||
01-10-2007, 06:03 PM | #57 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Also, in many of these cases, if we hadn't supported the dictator we did, the USSR would have taken control of those countries. Afghanistan's conflict against the Soviet Union in the 1980s should serve as a good example of what the USSR was like at that time. The USSR was a terrible menace to the world. Supporting certain dictators in the Middle East, in countries that had always been totalitarian, in order to stop the forward movement of the USSR was a necessary US policy. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||
01-10-2007, 06:22 PM | #58 | ||
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
I can't but largely agree with what you guys are saying. Just a few quick notes:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ |
||
01-10-2007, 06:26 PM | #59 |
Death of Mooters and [Entmoot] Internal Affairs
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,870
|
Not to forget Chile (though not 'installed', clearly helped along).
__________________
Fëanor - Innocence incarnated Still, Aikanáro 'till the Last battle. Last edited by Falagar : 01-10-2007 at 06:27 PM. |
01-10-2007, 06:54 PM | #60 | ||
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poison terror alert in London | Draken | General Messages | 15 | 01-15-2003 01:53 PM |
The rising terror | Madrik The Dark | RPG Forum | 3 | 06-12-2002 09:17 PM |