Thread Tools
Mar 22, 2002, 01:20 PM
Mr Mootsie
Mr Mootsie's Avatar
Thread OP

It is not easy opposing the war on terror


This was a good read for me. I am sure GMan and some others will provide their take.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Mar21.html
Mar 22, 2002, 01:59 PM
Sept. 11 seems to have been a fairly definitive declaration of war on America,

Why this any more than Oklahoma city, the embassies, warships or the original try at the WTC. Only the scale of success is different. This was likely not anticipated.

U.S. bombing stop so she and her indispensable cohort could feed the hungry. Had we listened to them, tens of thousands of Afghans would have died.

The Taliban was allowed to come to power to control lawlessness and marginally improved the flow of food and aid. The Northern alliance was the precurser that jacked heroin production and contributed to the lawless condition. Ridding the Taliban did not improve transportation in the country at ALL. Journalists took their life in their hands to travel. Blown up bridges and roads didnt help and truck drivers refused wisely to move after the chaos. Dedicating arable space to heroin production didnt bring food but did bring money. They are now heading that way again.

Americans have not much appetite for giving al Qaeda the run of a massive judicial apparatus designed for those who live by the American Constitution.

I dont believe there were any AL Qaeda in Gitmo. Did taliban Johnny live by the Amer. Const?

The war on radical Islam is a war of necessity. Wars of necessity have no exit. They must be won.

How do you win a war that will recruit more zealots by the day even from previously docile sectors?

Calling for protest to "reclaim our own democracy," the left waits, forlorn and flailing, for the American "street" to rise. Meanwhile, the street, sporting American flags on its SUVs, carries on, inexplicably less frightened by George W. Bush than by Osama bin Laden.

Just wait. It seems that Dubya is not too scared by bin laden as he isnt spewing hate his way.

As the isolation from the rest of the world becomes apparent to average joe, and the bills become due for the extra terrorist adventures, there will be questions asked.

It seems that the emperor was seen naked on 9/11 and every effort has been made to prove his virility ever since. Many of the things being done are in fear of lessened fright in general by the rest of the world. Examples must be made. I wouldnt mind at all if they were the guilty alone who suffered. All those who op[pose our rule have become the guilty.
Mar 22, 2002, 02:05 PM
Mr Mootsie
Mr Mootsie's Avatar
Thread OP
one of the more readable GMan posts. I don't agree with any of it, but it was readable.....

Newbie, come out and play! none of those idiot disclaimers either. we know who you are, and it is okay by me.
Mar 22, 2002, 02:14 PM
I don't agree with any of it, but it was readable

Please, point out the errors. I am using very conservative sources for my refutations.
Mar 22, 2002, 02:23 PM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Gman2,

I agree with MrMootsie, very readable.

Point out the errors? Did he say errors? He, and I, just disagree with you.

BTW, who is your "conservative source for your refutations"?

VP
Mar 22, 2002, 02:28 PM
Registered User
flyfalcons's Avatar
Quote:
How do you win a war that will recruit more zealots by the day even from previously docile sectors?
To win, you must not lose. To lose, all we have to do is sit back and let them hammer us again.

Quote:
Ridding the Taliban did not improve transportation in the country at ALL. Journalists took their life in their hands to travel.
Change can't occur overnight. In a third-world country there will always be outlaws - driving down the roads there is not like a county road here. That's just how it is.
Mar 22, 2002, 02:42 PM
Mr Mootsie
Mr Mootsie's Avatar
Thread OP
no errors, I just philosphically disagree.
Mar 22, 2002, 02:51 PM
Change can't occur overnight. In a third-world country there will always be outlaws - driving down the roads there is not like a county road here. That's just how it is.

The article stated that were it not for ridding the country of taliban, many would have starved and that they were the reason for the starving masses. THis was my refutation.

I think we definitely should have conducted a police action. This means using troops. I think we should have given fair warning not to interfere. We should have destroyed the Al Qaeda camps. We should have taken in all remnants. Chasing Bin Laden is fine. Look at the new bases. They are in a direct line along the proposed oil pipeline. This is the reason for ridding the Taliban, not so we can gawk at afghan women in bikini's. Questioning Saudi and Egyptians would have been prudent. Creating a system to track foreigners inside the country would also be a good idea. The huge proportions of what we are doing is costly and shows no real results. Even threatening nukes would not dissuade real terrorists as they are countryless. Making friends and siding to what degree we do with Pakistan is not wise. They made the Taliban. Fencing in China and Russia while threatening nuclear war is not wise.

Our money would be better spent in training and deploying intellegence officers with language skills to ferret out the real culprits wherever that leads.

What we are doing is akin to the cyclops in the Illiad. When he was blinded he lashed out in all directions hoping to catch someone. Real power does not flail but acts deliberately.
Mar 22, 2002, 03:07 PM
Mr Mootsie
Mr Mootsie's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally posted by Gman2


I think we definitely should have conducted a police action. This means using troops. I think we should have given fair warning not to interfere. .
I don't know what a police action is. History calls it the Korean War, not the Korean Police Action, which is what it started out as.

You don't warn anyone about anything in a police action, war, or any sort of hostilities. It is called telegraphing the punch.

You don't think that ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban had a role in feeding the nation? It is like Somalia. The warlords were taking all the food for themselves and not feeding who the NGO's were targeting for the food.
Mar 22, 2002, 03:33 PM

Dont get me wrong,


the Taliban are bad guys and werent humanitarian in any sense of the word. They did not cause near the upheaval of bombing and the chaos to follow the power vacuum.

Police action in the sense of police moving on holed up robbers. They state that they are taking them to justice. Then they move in force and nobody else better interfere. If we moved like a mob in huge numbers there would not have been that many casualties. That move would have been read as real power. Pinpoint justice and no unintended damage relatively speaking. Along with this a promise to do the same wherever terrorists hide after they do their thing. There were what, half a dozen training camps. The rest of rounding up the Al Qaeda will have to be done anyway. Bring those who did not allow arrest of terrorists to justice as we do in this country. We would be cheered for our restraint and integrity from around the world.

I know Mootsie will not agree with this as he had to command men and would not willingly allow even one of his men to perish when a way could be found to avoid this even if it involved the possibility of collateral damage and I can admire most of that.
Mar 22, 2002, 03:46 PM
Registered User
flyfalcons's Avatar
If I remember my history classes right, it seems invasions always ended with more casualties than precision bombing missions.
Mar 22, 2002, 04:59 PM
Registered User
I heard someone the other day(can't remember who or where) commenting about how most terrorists come from the ranks of the disallusioned unemployed...? If that is true then some small part of our effort to defeat terrorism will need to go towards aleviating that sort of thing?

I don't prtend to know how that should be done...just MHO that some thought and effort should go in that direction.....

any thoughts on this?

Jim
Mar 22, 2002, 05:26 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by MrMootsie
one of the more readable GMan posts. I don't agree with any of it, but it was readable.....

Newbie, come out and play! none of those idiot disclaimers either. we know who you are, and it is okay by me.
Is who I am or what I think OK, even if I hit a vein again? What if I say something about the Marine Corp, another organization you seem to hold in high esteem. What other organizations and institutions should I avoid? Should I really give a damn that you think I'm OK, after your display of rudeness? I angered you and I apologized for it. You called me a hater and self-centered, and then "invite" me back like some ambassador of hospitality? Excuse me if I find that kinda odd.

If you already know who I am (a nihilist with a bloated self-image) what's the point of my writing an opinion? Just go ahead and argue against whatever position you assume I would take!

Ya know, not to long ago, most people thought the world was flat and emotion originated in the heart. Popularity is not that great a measure of accuracy, so I'm sorry if I don't feel compelled to jump in with the groups consensus or with any organization's world view.

I was just out for a bikeride and saw a car with a "Protected by Angels" bumper sticker on it. I wanted to ask them if they had liability and collision, just collision insurance or they were going whole hog with the angel protection plan! Doesn't anyone else see the horrendous irony of these commonly held beliefs?

Disagreement and discussion is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. I may think some beliefs are wrong, but I want to hear what someone thinks. That is not so for many people both within and outside this country. Does Osama want to hear about the goods in modernity and multi-dimensional society? Does Bush want to here about the problems with corporate capitalism and rampant consumerism? Does the Catholic Church or Jerry Falwell want to here about the ability to be a good human despite agnosticism or atheism?

Is it any wonder those opposing the war on terror, the axis of evil and the significant spending, violence and death involved are being demonized and marginalized in the current climate?

Most of the country is falling all over itself talking about how bad evil is. I don't really consider that a very valid point of discussion.

9/11 was a wake up call and a significant chance for America to do some serious soul-searching, security raising and policy modification, but that isn't happening and the gov't, the media and business interests are back at the same old game: Manufacturing Consent, making people into sheep.

Really the only way to get rid of terrorism would be to give the guerilla/terror force a bunch of weapons and training, so that the war could be fought with more conventional means. As it is, counter-insurgency isn't an end game scenario, it's a management tactic.

I am not, nor are most critics of the Bush Adminstration (the US political system) saying that America deserved it, that the US, Capitalism or Global Business are the root of all evil or that terrorism is somehow to be appreciated or cowed to.

We are saying there are some significant problems in the world, of which terror (and violence generally) is simply one symptom, and that the above (US gov't, global business, capitalism, international orgs)play significant roles in the existence and the continuance of those problems.

So it's time to make a decision. The simplicity and warm fuzzies of "we are good, they are evil, end of discussion, let's do some killin" or the more realistic, more complex "what are the underlying issues motivating armed conflict throughout the world and what can we as private citizens of the world's wealthy democracies do about it".

I'm not saying I've got all the answers or that there are any easy answers for the problems we face, just that the line the gov't and media are feeding is less fulfilling than it has ever been for me. The first step in making things better is identifying problems.

Idiot Disclaimer: I had eggs for breakfast and that usually makes me a little cheeky.
Mar 22, 2002, 05:34 PM

Revolutions and terrorists are


usually not the lowest down people. When a light at the end of the tunnel is seen, thats when people get the idea. Both camps are ideological extremists who use the plight of others as their motivation. Luckily our extremists were extremely democratic. You cant say that the particular individuals are not poor enough to claim desperation is a cause. It still is the case that brethren in dire straights breeds terrorists and revolutionaries. That the terrorists were egyptian and Saudi's does not ruin the theory. Those states are relatively prosperous.

It is not the unemployed but those with at least some independent means. As some have stated on these forums, when you get a house and mortgage and are strapped you too will see the status quo light. Subcommander Marcos is not a real peasant, Buddha was a prince. A prince is unemployed but not penniless.
Mar 22, 2002, 06:06 PM
Human Like You
NewbieX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by me11owman
I heard someone the other day(can't remember who or where) commenting about how most terrorists come from the ranks of the disallusioned unemployed...? If that is true then some small part of our effort to defeat terrorism will need to go towards aleviating that sort of thing?

I don't prtend to know how that should be done...just MHO that some thought and effort should go in that direction.....

any thoughts on this?

Jim
I guess it kinda depends. Alot has been said about how the 911 guys (or at least Atta and the most investigated) were educated, middle class, well-dressed, had economic option, etc.

But they could also be part of the disillusioned and desperate, given the political situation in Saudi Arabia. How would you feel if you had grown up in a repressive antidemocracy and you travelled to Europe and the US?

It might upset you that it seems impossible to change the political situation in your country and that the same countries that proclaim and enjoy democracy (debatable) seem to support your subjugation.

I can clearly see that suicide bombers could come from the massive groups of poverty throughout the world, but I can also see that any strong conviction mated to desperation can breed terror.

All you really have to do is believe your agenda is more important than your own or other's lives. Tim McVeigh wasn't desperate, Osama isn't desperate, Colombian drug lords of the 80's weren't desperate. They just didn't value human life as much as they valued their vision or whatever.

I think to some extent people like to have enemies. It helps you define yourself, makes existence more clear. A struggle forces you to take a position whereas life itself doesn't.

But I think there is some truth here. Terrorism is a tactic of desperation. The world's poverty-bound underclass is desperate. When you are desperate, having someone or something to blame is comforting. Think Germany 1930's, that made the Great Depression in the US look like a summertime BBQ with a band and dancing girls.

This analysis suggests to me that addressing the concerns of the desperate, ameliorating the condition of desperation is likely a good way to tackle conflict and terror.

Idiot Disclaimer: I could be an idiot.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools