Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Ah, the 'its all our fault' line of thought. I say there's too much understanding from the Democrats and not enough ass kicking.

---

Quote:

---

You want us to step back and solve the underlying problems. Problems that are the legacy of cold war, colonialism, corruption of international institutions and thousands of years of religeous conflict. And while your studying that, they are murdering innocent men, women, and children on the streets of our friends, allies, and brothers in arms and dreaming of the day they can do the same thing on every streetcorner in every town of our own country.

---

Quote:

---

The only underlying issue now that needs solved is this: we are at war. War means fighting. Fighting means killing. And victory means killing them until they are all dead or they give up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

So, do you not agree that preventing a nuclear attack on US soil is worth diplomatic effort?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
we could focus solving the problems in the first place that might lead to a situation where people would end up wanting to kick *ss.

---

Ah, the 'its all our fault' line of thought. I say there's too much understanding from the Democrats and not enough ass kicking. Thats why they keep getting their collective asses kicked in national elections.

They've lost nearly every race since 1994, including control of the House, Senate, Presidency, the majority of State legislatures and Governorships.

One good example is Howard Dean who urges us not to condem Osama Bin Laddin without a trial but demands we jail Karl Rove without one.

You want us to step back and solve the underlying problems. Problems that are the legacy of cold war, colonialism, corruption of international institutions and thousands of years of religeous conflict. And while your studying that, they are murdering innocent men, women, and children on the streets of our friends, allies, and brothers in arms and dreaming of the day they can do the same thing on every streetcorner in every town of our own country.

The only underlying issue now that needs solved is this: we are at war. War means fighting. Fighting means killing. And victory means killing them until they are all dead or they give up. We can address their other concerns at the peace table and in the history books when its over, but we should be dictating the terms: liberty, democracy, opportunity to our former enemies (just like we did for Germany and Japan). Because their terms: fear, death, intollerance, dispair; wont don't seem as desirable.

H

---

Quote:

---

"And while your studying that, they are murdering innocent men, women, and children on the streets of our friends, allies, and brothers in arms and dreaming of the day they can do the same thing on every streetcorner in every town of our own country."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
By writing off attempts to understand the underlying cause of terrorism as 'blame America first' thinking, you're neglecting an important, possibly the most important, ingredient to protecting ourselves from terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

Which is exactly why we need to quit wasting lives and money on a failed strategy and get to down to what's really going on. The reason Islamic terrorism started in the first place was our unwelcome military presence in the region. Increasing that military presence is precisely the way to deepen the motivation for terrorists.

---

Quote:

---

Can you honestly say this will ever happen?

---

Quote:

---

As long as they believe that we intend to occupy their land indefinitely, I don't see them giving up. We need to make our intentions perfectly clear before we can expect the terrorists, or more importantly the general Muslim population, to cooperate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
There is historical precedent for my perspective. Not a lot of Indian (American) attacks these days. Was it because we understood them and addressed their concerns? No. Its because we defeated them and removed their ability and will to engage in armed conflict.

Not saying what we did was right or wrong. But it was damned effective.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- are you advocating the murder of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people? A YES or NO will do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
...And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

---

Quote:

---

Our war strategy has ... spread liberty and justice to two nations, one a terrorist stronghold, the other a brutal dictatorship and the ripples have swept nations like Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and so on further down the path towards reform, not to mention other countries like the Ukraine who follow the example of brave Iraqis, Afghanis, and Lebanese who brave terror and tragedy to stand for freedom and democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I find the current state of discourse in this country so toxic, it impedes simple logical thought. For instance, it occures to me that there are plenty of countries that are more culturally liberal than our own. Why don't the Islamic fundies go after Holland if cultural decadence and "freedom" are their beef? Why don't the terrorists hate their freedom too?

'Cause Holland ain't pointing a gun at anyone.

With our military superiority, we effectively hold the entire world hostage to our good will. Is that too difficult to understand? It's like the old good cop/bad cop ploy. The bare fact of our military power which we have demonstrated regularly around the world since Hiroshima, is the "bad cop" that stands in the back of the room at the ready, observing while we "spread liberty and justice."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:
Don't think for an instant I would hesitate to use the most awesome weapon in our arsenal if it would resolve the problem. If it took the streets of Mecca and Medina running red with the blood of innocent civillians I would do it and sleep soundly that night having done it. Don't think I wouldn't license the immediate destruction of every man, woman and child in these terrorist's families if it would stop the violence and bloodshed, but it won't.

---

Quote:

---

No. I'm advocating the catching, killing, incarcerating or otherwise neutralizing thousands of people. The ones I want are not innocent.

Thats the the biggest disagreement we seem to have. You seem to think these people are innocent. They are terrorists and their victims are not just the dead and injured innocents in London, New York, Bagdad, and Isreal, its their own people who.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:
I believe you misunderstand me. I was trying to underline the futility of violence. Both sides have proven they are capable of whatever level of violent escalation the other side climbs to. As things are now this is a never ending circle of violence. It will take something bigger than either side to break the circle.

---

Quote:

---

But I believe you are wrong about the Van Gogh thing. They specifically targetted him for his documentary, but they promised Jihad against politicians and anyone who stands in their way. As you pointed out Holland isn't pointing a gun at anybody. They sought him out merely because he had a different viewpoint than they did. Sort of takes away the rational argument that terrorism happens because the terrorists are downtrodden and fearful of the military of the targetted countries, doesn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
See, here's where I make what I hope will be my final point of the evening (since I have class in 45 minutes): deep down, I'm afraid that nothing will work. Deep down I really feel that diplomacy will merely embolden terrorists and military action enrage them. The only path I see is to do everything they want and then seal the borders and cut off all contact with the world (which would tickle them pink, no doubt). Seriously, we're up against an enemy that's more committed winning than we are. Yikes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hardware:
Don't think for an instant I would hesitate to use the most awesome weapon in our arsenal if it would resolve the problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
See, here's where I make what I hope will be my final point of the evening (since I have class in 45 minutes): deep down, I'm afraid that nothing will work. Deep down I really feel that diplomacy will merely embolden terrorists and military action enrage them. The only path I see is to do everything they want and then seal the borders and cut off all contact with the world (which would tickle them pink, no doubt). Seriously, we're up against an enemy that's more committed winning than we are. Yikes.

---

InevitableB, I hope you're still reading the hread, because I thought we had a pretty worthwhile discussion going until Mr. Tar Baby came and hijacked it (Signy, I hope you won't be too disappointed if he doesn't answer your question--I know I won't).

IB, I really appreciate your candor with this last post. I think it's of the utmost importance that we be able to talk about our hopelessness these days, because there is an awful lot of it out there. It's why I started this thread in the first place.

I think a lot of people making policy today share your hopelessness and that's why they're making such horrible decissions. If nothing we do can change the situation for the better, then all that's left to us is to strike an heroic pose on deck as the ship sinks (and the Bush administration is very, very good at posing heroically while everything falls down about their ears).

We could hear that hopelessness throughout the last election, every time John Kerry opened his mouth. He had no plan to "win the peace" 'cause he didn't believe it was possible. Bush certainly doesn't believe it's possible. What are we gonna do, if our leaders have no workable realistic vision for the future?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

---

I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.



The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm waiting for Hero to say, in his own words, who the "guilty" are and the collateral damage he's willing to accept.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

---

I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.



The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
But instead of just flopping to the other side, I seem to have lost all hope in the entire process.

---

Quote:

---

Just like any other war. The guilty are those who give the orders, in this case, the mullahs, islamifascists, and money men who command our enemies.... Our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict against us and those who support them either directly or indirectly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

NO! Do NOT go to the other side, it's not an ideal location, either.
We have to believe that the process works on SOME level, there are more alive than dying, more fed than starving...it's not ALL bad!
Maybe it ALL needs to be scrutinized, but this world could be a WHOLE lot worse.

Pep talkin' Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Yeah...the thing is, though, I can't see how going dem or GOP is going to solve anything. It feels like half the problem is the whole two-party system. We all take sides on issues and holler 'til our vocal chords bleed, meanwhile bombs are exploding in London. obviously something is wrong if they're bombing us, but golly--even "what's wrong" is a politicized issue on which we must take sides. So what's left to do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

---

Quote:

---

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. ...As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
How is it that attacking Iran is a logical contingency to a terrorist attack for which Iran bears no responsibilty? The same way that Saddam became our enemy even though he hadn't "taken the field in armed conflict" against us (or anyone)? Please explain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The article is clearly not talking about comprehensive or generic plans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was curious how broading-ranging the reference to Islamic Republic is. It includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Muaritania, and the Comoros, and I'm not sure if that's the end of the list. I think we should have a contingency plan for invading the IR of Mauritania.

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

---

Quote:

---

However, I also think it's realistic- even preferable- to talk about what we should do IF it should happen, even if that involves doing NOTHING except act in response mode (medical treatment, decontamination etc.) It's like any emergency -

---

Quote:

---

The problem is that Islamic Terrorism, unlike Nazism or Fascism or Japanese Imperialism, is a product of a culture that is unconfined to any region or group of states (even though certain states and regions are obviously more heavily infected with this culture). Most of the terrorist in the London attack were British citizens born in Britain. Nuclear weapons are weapons against states, not cultures, and as such they are very ineffective as an offensive tool in the war on terror. In order to attack Islamic Terrorism, one must attack the culture that breeds it.

---

Quote:

---

Now if you really want to strike fear into the heart of Islamic terrorists, then turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. That will do far more damage to Islamic Terrorism then nuking Mecca.

---

Quote:

---

In the short-term I'd say no. The US does not have a large enough radical Muslim population to do that internally (though one well-connected radical Islamist could prove me wrong).

---

Quote:

---

But on a point of historical correctness, the US military has in the past deliberately targeted non-combatants (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Perhaps not recently, but it is not without precedent. I would hope that we don't follow that precedent.

---

Quote:

---

Its not madness, its MAD'ness. Mutual Assured Destruction. Sounds wacky but that little idea kept the peace for what? Over fifty years. That and other ideas thought by liberals to be sure fire recipes for global destruction.

MAD, collective security, engagement, containment, cowboy diplomacy, military buildups...basically anything we tried that worked was opposed at some point by the liberals at some point or another.

---

Quote:

---

No. I'm advocating the catching, killing, incarcerating or otherwise neutralizing thousands of people. The ones I want are not innocent.

Thats the the biggest disagreement we seem to have. You seem to think these people are innocent. They are terrorists and their victims are not just the dead and injured innocents in London, New York, Bagdad, and Isreal, its their own people who.

---

Quote:

---

It is you who are seeking to seek an accomidation with those who murder innocents. And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Of course Zero!! oops I meant Hero,( excuse the pun I was trying to be funny I'm sure you can appreciate that)... how could I forget, with you it always comes down to the Liberals

---

Quote:

---

as long as you realize Hero, ... you have to realize that you are not innocent..we are not innocent, you see it as black and white..you see the united States as rightious and yourself as innocent..you aren't we arent...I know this is a very hard concept for you..but why don't you try to see yourself as a human being first...and an American 2nd..

---

Quote:

---

when we support the terrorist acts of our own government what makes us any diffrent from those people who support the acts of terrorist!!

---

Quote:

---

won???? what is there to win, when this is a war that can't be won, not witht he way its being fought, remember terrorist acts only brings more terrorist acts!!!

---