Here's a look at why the "War on Terror" is stupid....

Everyone dies. So why bother with medicine? The chances that anyone in Kansas City would die slipping in their own bathtub was far more probable than dying as a result of nuclear warheads riding on Soviet ICBM, does this mean that we should not have earmarked massive national resources to fight the Cold War?

0 Replies

The difference being, without the earmarks to fight the cold war, the odds of dying from nuclear warheads would have been far higher.

Whereas, our current struggle; not so much.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thanks to the unrelenting vigilance of the current administration, we can confidently assert that there are millions upon millions of people in the world who would like to see us all dead.

0 Replies

Never underestimate your enemy. The current foe is dedicated to killing as many of us as they can. They have killing resources far greater than wielded by past enemies. They have learned how to use propaganda effectively to undermine support among our own people. They are willing to die as a tiny part of their overall conviction that God Wills the destruction of the materialistic and humanistic West. They believe that they can not lose, and are willing to sacrifice greatly to achieve their ends. They wage war with out any regard for conventions, and while we have bound ourselves to multiple constraints. They will not hesitate, even for a second, to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of a large Western city, or let loose chemical agents that would kill thousands. There is an unacceptable risk that they would resort to biological weapons if they have access to them. These are dangerous people.

0 Replies

I've heard of Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys--but i've never heard of God Wills. My only reply is that you have wonderfully deluded yourself in order to avoid recognizing that the emperor is naked.

0 Replies

Quote:

They have killing resources far greater than wielded by past enemies.

This is, of course, completely false, Asherman, as you well know.

Russia, at the height of the cold war, had hundreds of nukes and delivery systems. This represented a far, far greater chance of death at the hands of our enemies, and the possibility of destruction of our nation (something terrorism cannot accomplish).

Let me ask you: if the strategy of terrorists is to sow terror, and you go around telling everyone how afraid of these people we need to be, then are you not validating their strategy?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

No, I'm not saying we should be afraid of them. I am saying don't underestimate their capability and intent to kill as many of us as possible. They can not defeat us on a conventional battlefield, so they choose a strategy they believe has a better chance of victory. They are convinced that that U.S. and Soviet Union were defeated by dedicated irregulars willing to die for their cause. They have been quick to adopt propaganda aimed at the heart of our people with the intent of sapping our willingness to fight them.

You are correct that radical international Islamic terrorist organizations by themselves do not have the same capacity for destruction as might have occurred in an all-out nuclear exchange in 1990. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was controlled by rational men. From very early on, there was an agreement between us not to directly engage one another in a way that might escalate into a full-blown nuclear exchange. Though we all lived with the understanding that our world might end, the actual risk was always manageable.

This enemy is not rational. They prefer direct sneak attacks designed for maximum killing and media coverage. Unlike the Soviets, this enemy has the will to unleash chemical and biological weapons. This enemy may not be able to destroy 90% of U.S. cities with nuclear warheads, but they can so disrupt our economy and erode our will to fight that we simply give up and let them have their way in the world.

I don't think they necessarily want us to fear them, they want us to give up the fight and permit them to gather strength for new attacks. A single pirana has a mean bite; painful, but not fatal. Many small bites and all that is left is a skeleton. The enemy has introduced small numbers of pirana into our once safe waters, and if we do not eradicate them we will someday find it difficult to go wading anywhere.

Against this sort of enemy there is no compromise. They can not be trusted, so negotiations with them is useless. We must fight them and defeat them, or in the end they very well might have the victory that they believe that God has promised them. We must disabuse them of that notion, and all it seems that they understand is brutal warfare without quarter. If they want to go to Paradise, then lets help them along.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let me ask you: if the strategy of terrorists is to sow terror, and you go around telling everyone how afraid of these people we need to be, then are you not validating their strategy?

This is so much to the point. Terrorists have no better friends than the current American executive administration. They have jumped on the terror bandwagon to exploit terror to their own ends to a degree that makes people like bin Laden look like pikers.

0 Replies

I will on the rare occasion agree with Asherman and I believe our current enemy actually does have far more killing resources, not in warheads or equipment but rather an abundance of crazy mother f*ckers who are willing to commit suicide for allah. stupid bastards.

0 Replies

Quote:

Against this sort of enemy there is no compromise. They can not be trusted, so negotiations with them is useless.

It's this sort of hyperbolic assertion that strikes me. Why is there no compromise? Why can they not be negotaited with? I haven't seen any evidence that this is true.

Also, Russia stood a pretty good chance of winning a nuclear war with the US during the height of their power. Remember that they had three huge factors going their way:

First, they were quite spread out in terms of populace as compared to the US. Something like 90% of Russians lived outside of major metro areas, in direct contrast the the US. We were therefore much more susceptible to nuclear attack than they were due to a real lack of populace dispersal; it would take far fewer warheads to cripple us than them.

Second, the Russians have never been loathe to sacrifice lives if it accomplishes a military purpose.

Third, they are far more used to dealing with long and difficult winters; the aftermath of a nuclear war would therefore not be as destructive to them as it would us.

So, why didn't they attack? Because we did a good job negotiating with the 'evil empire.' You should recall that many of the same statements you make about the terrorists, that they 'can't be reasoned with,' were also made about the Communists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Additionally, saying that there can be no compromise is disingenuous in two respects. The first is that it implies that anyone who doesn't support the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad wants to compromise with terrorists. The second is that it seeks to portray any Muslim with a greivance as an inveterate terrorist with whom one cannot negotiate. There are many people in the Muslim world who simply want equity, and the right to control their own destinies. Were there a plausible chance of acheiving that, there is no reason to assume that they would be irreconcilable terrorists simply because they are Muslims. There is nothing to choose between a wild-eyed political ideologue and a wild-eyed religious fanatic.

0 Replies

I think that the unwillingness to negotiate lies on the American side of the discussion. That the current administration, and its supporters, have given this atribute to their enemy conveniently permits them to refuse to even table negotiations.....not that "the enemy" would be willing to even hear the predictable, uncompromising negotiations the US would likely bring forth.

0 Replies

Didn't say that Muslims can't be bargained with. It is the radical Islamic movement operating primarily as disavowed international terrorists that can neither be trusted nor compromised with. Iran and Syria wish to dominate first the Islamic World and then the world at large. Iran wants nuclear weapons to consolidate their leadership position, to blackmail their neighbors and an oil hungry world, and to destroy Israel. They haven't exactly been covert about their aims.

neither did I even imply that any disagreement with this administration is tantamount to treason.

Quote:

the Russians have never been loathe to sacrifice lives if it accomplishes a military purpose.

The Soviets were willing to accept great loss of life to achieve their ends. However, I don't recall the Soviets sending masses of children in front of assaults to clear the mine fields by dying for the Cause. How many Soviet operatives made suicide manifestos before highjacking and crashing aircraft into large office buildings? This bunch make a virtue of dying if they can murder thousands in the process. Communist Idealism was a disaster, but radical Islamic Idealism is more dangerous because the radical Muslim finds victory in death ... those atheist Russians fully expected to live in victory.

The Soviets didn't launch a first strike, not because of some set of negotiations, but because that would have provoked a full scale retaliatory strike. There were both Soviet and U.S. strategists firmly believed that even the greatest nuclear exchange imaginable would not lead to extinction, and that both nations would survive though essentially broken. Mutually Assured Destruction was harder than hell on us all, but it did prevent conflicts from escalating into nuclear warfare.

0 Replies

Quote:

Didn't say that Muslims can't be bargained with. It is the radical Islamic movement operating primarily as disavowed international terrorists that can neither be trusted nor compromised with.

This is why we negotiate with the Muslims, and not the Radical Islaamic movement.

Without the support of the societies they hide in, it would be difficult if not impossible for the terrorists to survive. Therefore, our best opportunity for ending the threat of Islaamic terrorism is to convince the non-fundamentalists that they are far better off being on our side than on the side of the terrorists. So far, we have failed miserably at doing this, and our military might really isn't of any help; fear will only drive them into the hands of the terrorists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Didn't say that Muslims can't be bargained with. It is the radical Islamic movement operating primarily as disavowed international terrorists that can neither be trusted nor compromised with.

This is why we negotiate with the Muslims, and not the Radical Islaamic movement.

Without the support of the societies they hide in, it would be difficult if not impossible for the terrorists to survive. Therefore, our best opportunity for ending the threat of Islaamic terrorism is to convince the non-fundamentalists that they are far better off being on our side than on the side of the terrorists. So far, we have failed miserably at doing this, and our military might really isn't of any help; fear will only drive them into the hands of the terrorists.

Cycloptichorn

Are there Muslim leaders currently that have the influence to make it 'impossible for the terorists to survive'? Who are they and how do they go about it?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

It is the radical Islamic movement operating primarily as disavowed international terrorists that can neither be trusted nor compromised with.

And who lack the ability to project power into the United States in any meaningful way.

Better traffic enforcement would save a lot more lives than "homeland security" does.

0 Replies

So does that mean you favor a return to the sort of national security levels that predated 9/11? Surely you don't believe that the U.S. should disavow any leadership role and almost totally withdraw to within our borders.

Ah, Peace at any price. By negotiating with the Iranian Mullahs will you really purchase "Peace in our Time". Talk about slow learners.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

So does that mean you favor a return to the sort of national security levels that predated 9/11? Surely you don't believe that the U.S. should disavow any leadership role and almost totally withdraw to within our borders.

Ah, Peace at any price. By negotiating with the Iranian Mullahs will you really purchase "Peace in our Time". Talk about slow learners.

Strawman. There are a variety of offensive and defensive responses that can be taken in response to 9/11 and in light of our current situation in the post-Iraq era. Increasing our defensive measures here at home should be a top priority given the distributed and diverse nature of terrorism, yet we have done practically none of the neccessary steps to do so.

Also, you are asserting that there is no chance of negotiation without providing any evidence that this is true. As I said, this is similar to those who claimed that there could be no negotiation with Russia. Also without evidence that this was true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Didn't say that Muslims can't be bargained with. It is the radical Islamic movement operating primarily as disavowed international terrorists that can neither be trusted nor compromised with.

This is why we negotiate with the Muslims, and not the Radical Islaamic movement.

Without the support of the societies they hide in, it would be difficult if not impossible for the terrorists to survive. Therefore, our best opportunity for ending the threat of Islaamic terrorism is to convince the non-fundamentalists that they are far better off being on our side than on the side of the terrorists. So far, we have failed miserably at doing this, and our military might really isn't of any help; fear will only drive them into the hands of the terrorists.

Cycloptichorn

Are there Muslim leaders currently that have the influence to make it 'impossible for the terorists to survive'? Who are they and how do they go about it?

Cyclo?

0 Replies

Here's a look at why the "War on Terror" is stupid....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know