See the big picture, dont be a Pacifist

[FishForLunch]

Everytime you feel the US is using excessive force to fight terrorism watch this movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...78181614&hl=en

[Drbio]

Pretty powerful stuff......long view but worth it.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Everytime you feel the US is using excessive force to fight terrorism watch this movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...78181614&hl=en

You seem to not UNDERSTAND the opposite view.
Disagree? fine.
But at least UNDERSTAND what the other side's position is. Everybody in the US wants to limit terrorism. Everybody.

One side thinks that the best way to slow down terrorism is to crush it at its source, with our vast military might. No matter what.

The "other" side also wants to limit terrorism, but to do so believes one big key is to not aid the formation of a new wave of terrorists, by giving bulletin board material.


As if it is that easy, and the whole country can be put into two buckets, described by two sentences... of course EVERYONE is somewhere between the two poles, SOME force is needed (I doubt many want Osama as a next door neighbor) and SOME restraint is called for (I think most would agree it would be difficult, and perhaps even counterproductive to just nuke 800 million people). the question is WHERE in the grey, in-between zone is most productive tho the goal that EVERYBODY SHARES, slow down this awful terrorism shit.

To pretend that the "other" side from you is pro-terrorism... is either willfully ignorant or purposely antagonistic, neither of which is particularly productive in a discussion

[dude1394]

There is no doubt in my mind that radical islam has declared war on the west to try and take back what they feel are the god-given right of land that was once islamified. This is going to be a long, long battle, much like the fight against communism was. It's going to require a very,very long term view of it.

Unfortunately I'm afraid that we don't have the stuff required for it with all of the 60s folks still around. Since they also thought the USSR was eden as well.

We are just going to have to keep voting liberals out of office I think.

[capitalcity]

They want a new caliphate,
To get that I have to die or convert,

I don't plan on doing either.

[mqywaaah]

That pretty much sums it all up

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You seem to not UNDERSTAND the opposite view.
Disagree? fine.
But at least UNDERSTAND what the other side's position is. Everybody in the US wants to limit terrorism. Everybody.

Personally, I'd like to stop it.

[Mavdog]

this war has no similarities to the cold war.

this is a very hot war.

sluggo makes many excellent points, with a critical one being that the war will be won by our isolating the radicals within their own culture. if the muslims of the world say they won't tolerate the radicals, the radicals will not have the ability to meld into society and stay hidden. if we lose the non-radical muslims and they allow the terrorists to operate, we will likely not have success.

so far we have made progress, but it is still along ways off.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

There is no doubt in my mind that radical islam has declared war on the west to try and take back what they feel are the god-given right of land that was once islamified. This is going to be a long, long battle, much like the fight against communism was. It's going to require a very,very long term view of it.

Unfortunately I'm afraid that we don't have the stuff required for it with all of the 60s folks still around. Since they also thought the USSR was eden as well.

We are just going to have to keep voting liberals out of office I think.

One key word here is RADICAL.

Second, what proportion of the US do you think thought the USSR was eden in the 60s? 1%? surely way too high. Please don't build "strawman" opponents to knock down

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You seem to not UNDERSTAND the opposite view.
. . .To pretend that the "other" side from you is pro-terrorism... is either willfully ignorant or purposely antagonistic, neither of which is particularly productive in a discussion

I don't get it. I haven't watched the vid yet (youtube says it's more than an hour long). But who says that the "other" side is pro-terrorism?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by capitalcity

They want a new caliphate,
To get that I have to die or convert,

I don't plan on doing either.

Oh come on.

Yes there are people screaming in the streets for that, but it is equivelent to an ant screaming at an elephant. If you are seriously afraid that the military and economic might of the radical Islam sects are going to stand up and out-brawl the west in a toe-to-toe fight, then for a small fee I can help you out: I've got some great tin-foil hats and super-secret underwater-breathing paste to sell, so that you'll be safe when the Caliphate AND the aliens come.

THe issue isn't us being swamped by a superior force, it is how much pain is an INSIGNIFICANT force going to inflict in its futile screams of range, and how to stop those futile screams. If it WAS two big titans lined up against each other... then yes full military force would certainly be called for, we don't want to be overwhelmed.

As it is, however, what we want to do is limit both the number and the resources of people that are so enranged that they are willing to die just to commit HARM to the other side without any hope of actually DEFEATING it. The radical lot is a dead-end street, and EVERYBODY knows it (on BOTH sides). However, as 9-11 illustrated all two clearly, even futile, pointless rage can cause real pain.



So the objective is to limit the number op people radicalized enough to not care if they personally lose everything, and to limit the resources these radicalized elements have at their disposal (and so limit the dmage each individual radical can inflict)


then we get back to the sides...

On one extreme side we have the belief that if we know that in some area the soil is fertile for radicalization, and there are some radicals already in harvest, we should hit hard and destroy the crop.

the problem with this view is that there are also individuals that are not radicals (yet) in those places, AND in other places and we KNOW that hitting hard INCREASES the fertility of radicalism. Not just there, but everywhere.


the other extreme side wants to "win with hugs". If we can just shower them with love they'll come around and we can all get together and sing "kumbya-my-lord".

The problem with THIS view is that there ALREADY are radicals, and THEY won't be won over. Period. If you put up your arms and run over to hug 'em, they'll kick you in the nuts.


Neither strategy works by itself. The huggers won't live to see the fruits of their love, and the stompers just keep on dumping gas on the fire. The only long-run winning strategy is to decrease the number of radicals (ie decrease the hate) which the Bush admin recognized from the start... this is why democracy in the region was such a key component of their plan: the understanding that two TRUE democracies never can sustain a war with each other (the problem with TRUE democracy, rather than just elections is of course the issue here)

[mcsluggo]

But in the end when you dismissively sneer "soft on terrorism" what is it you are decrying? and what alternative do you suggest? Does anyone really believe that radical islam can be met on the battle field, and defeated there...if we just have the will and are willing to accept the short-term costs?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I don't get it. I haven't watched the vid yet (youtube says it's more than an hour long). But who says that the "other" side is pro-terrorism?

good point.

How about "appeasing terrorists"

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by dude1394

There is no doubt in my mind that radical islam has declared war on the west to try and take back what they feel are the god-given right of land that was once islamified. .

Excellent use of "islamified"

[capitalcity]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

So the objective is to limit the number op people radicalized enough to not care if they personally lose everything, and to limit the resources these radicalized elements have at their disposal (and so limit the dmage each individual radical can inflict)

Yeah, I've heard the "we're making enemies faster than we can kill them" argument before.

It don't make a shit to me.

If the question isn't "who is gonna win", but "when are we gonna win" and "at what cost are we gonna win" then why even try to win their hearts and minds. Just erradicate them 2 generations at a time. Leave the elderly and the crippled to tell stories of a vengeful superpower and it's unconquerable spirit.

When we're done, we're done. We don't need diplomacy until we run outta bullets.

[mcsluggo]

thats a LOT 'o bullets (1.5 billion, give or take-- assuming you hit on the first shot every time)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups


(btw-- as a complete aside-- I had no idea there were only 14 million Jews in the entire world. If I been asked to guess, I would've thought there were more than 14 million Jews in the US alone.)

[George Gervin]

we can't kill all of them. so what's after the militray action? anyone know what that plan entails? I know bush's plan in iraq is victory and platitudes but what next?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

(btw-- as a complete aside-- I had no idea there were only 14 million Jews in the entire world. If I been asked to guess, I would've thought there were more than 14 million Jews in the US alone.)

And if Mel Gibson had his way there would apparently be less.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by dude1394

We are just going to have to keep voting liberals out of office I think.

That sure as heck sounds like a good idea to me...