How do you win a "War On Terror"?

Damn It's too late now for me to go back and tell that rotten ostrich it was faking.

I assume from your adult and my childhood observations that all ostrich's have been successfully counciled over the last 64 years not to do this anymore. Excellent

Now if we could be equally successful in counciling those who feel compelled to stick their heads in the UN sand, we might actually help them to understand how else they might control their fear and actually help the rest of us ameliorate rather than exacerbate the terrorist problem.

PLEASE NOTE:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968, Volume 16, page 1150, Ostrich:
"The bird has keen eyesight; when resting or hiding, it may sit and stretch its lanky neck along the ground, peering intently at some far-off threat. At a distance only the ostrich's bulky body is visible; hence the belief that the bird hides its head in the sand. When danger is imminent, however, the ostrich warily moves off, the male all the while producing a hissing sound, somewhat like a muffled roar." [emphasis added]

Well that bird sure fooled my Dad and me, else that bird we both saw didn't know that ostrich's don't do that.

Actually, this Britannica explanation seems to me even more analogous to human's leaving the solution of the terrorist problem to the UN! The Ostrich "may sit and stretch its lanky neck along the ground, peering intently at some far-off threat" and when "danger is imminent, however, the ostrich warily moves off, the male all the while producing a hissing sound, somewhat like a muffled roar." That must explain why according to Britannica in 1968, ostrich's had died out in Saudi Arabia: "Formally abundant in Arabia as well, it has not been sighted there since 1941."

Rocket doggy, is there a point in the above blather?

YES!

But that point is discernible only by those willing to risk thinking for themselves instead of ensconcing their thinking in the seemingly risk free comfortable laps of the demagoguery of others.

Those crippled by fanatical adherence to a doctrine that has repeatedly been demonstrated to not work, to not relate to reality, to not help people grow to self-reliance, and to help people look to others to take care of them are incapable of understanding the point. Only those not so crippled will readily understand the point regardless of whether or not they agree with it.

How about skipping the invective and actually stating the point?

I got your point with no difficulty at all. :wink:

You insult him, he answers and you ask him to skip the invective?!

{shakes head}

Please read or read again and study the article that I posted above:

AMERICAN POWER IN A UNIPOLAR WORLD

Charles Krauthammer

AEI Irving Kristol Lecture, Washington, D.C.

Feb. 10, 2004

He explains the point much better than I.

My net is simply: Confronting one's fears works better than trying to escape them by burying one's head in illusion or fantasy (e.g., UN illusion or fantasy) .

ican711nm: Please join us in a discussion about your post by clicking here.. :wink:

But this is exactly what the Krauthammer article urges one to do. Krauthammer hearkens to a mythical golden era when colonial powers were not afraid to use force to influence foreign powers. This era did not, in fact, exist.

I'm baffled. I do not understand how you could possibly come to this conclusion if you had read all of Krauthammer's article. I suggest that you reread it from beginning to end. He specifically rejects the colonial mentality of conquer 'em and order 'em. He even rejects the post WWII born mentality that recommended containment of tyrannical governments. He recommends selectively defeating those tyrants most dangerous to the welfare of the human race for the purpose of liberating and raising the tyrant's people to self-reliance and workable self-government. He does not recommend defeating tyrants merely to gain more power/land and to dictate how people shall live.

The Vietnam war was an application of an American containment policy. It did not work under Eisenhower with american advisers, under Kennedy with more american advisers, or most terribly under Johnson with american troops. So Nixon finally ended it. The Iraq war on the other hand is an application of an american pre-emption and development policy. Within about two years we'll be better able to see whether or not it will work.