"Gee, no kidding? Obviously, I meant that his impeachment-trial FAILED and he was forgiven his blowjob, in that he was Acquitted, by a Republican Controlled Congress. But if we could have had a "recall", you think he would have lost his office to that recall-effort? Absolutely not, since his numbers were in the 70% range when he was acquitted." - Fold
Fold, when did Republicans hold 67 seats in the Senate?
There were more votes to convict him than to spare him. His saving grace is that it takes 67 votes and not a majority to convict.
That aside, I really don't understand the recall in CA. If you oust the guy, why wouldn't the Lt. Gov take over? What the hell does the Lt. Gov do? Sounds like they are wasting money on an extra position to me.
Sad news about the UN being bombed and the bus in Israel blown up.
It got me to thinking about a few things. One is this, I believe that out of every bad comes a something good, (I'll get to that in a second) for if you learn nothing or don't grow stronger from tragedy then the other side has won.
People have a million different reasons why the US was attacked on 9-11. Rarely though is it asked or wondered aloud why other places that have nothing or little to do with the US are attacked. An embassy here or there A resort in Bali, German and other tourists being held hostage etc. etc. Why no wondering or theorizing on why they deserved it or in softer tones asking What motivated the attackers into hitting that target ? People felt free to list all the reasons why the US is under attack but strangely silent when terrorism targets other countries. Why no scrutinization about their foreign policy ?
It's because of two things, one for many it's a simplistic dislike, disdain and even hate for the US. Two, it's moralizing of that act as a way to voice displeasure with that country so terrorism is given legitimacy because although they dislike the terrorist methods they see them as a voice or even equalizer. In short, we dislike it but you had it coming because of _____ , _____, ______ etc. etc.
So what can we learn from the tagedy of the UN being attacked ? It's sad and tragic that someone would feel the need to kill not only fellow citizens and muslims but an organization that's trying to help Iraq get on it's feet again after 30 years of horrid and murderous dictatorship. What does that tell us about terrorists and fanatics ? Will we see the articles and handwringing and analysis about What did the UN do to anger the terrorists ? No, probably not, if it had been the US targeted as it has been it's because we're unwanted imperialists. Nevermind most Iraqi's want us there. My guess, when the presses roll tomorrow it will be the US not doing enough to protect the UN. Were we not doing enough to protect our own troops when they're killed ? Then we'll hear silence, again, they deserved it for being there or they'll disguise it by simply pointing to it as evidence that we A) don't have enough troops. B) Didn't plan well enough and C) Are unwanted by the Iraqi's. The sudden support and caring for our troops by this crowd is odd.
Todays bombings should prove one thing. One is that no matter how many troops you have, you can't stop everything. One or two people can and did create alot of mayhem. Troops on every corner would do very very little to stop that. The only thing you can do is target the leadership. It doesn't matter what intentions even are to terrorists, the UN was there to help. Yet they killed them too. Will we see stories about Iraqi's who don't want the UN and Unicef in Iraq ? No. That's the danger of legitimizing terrorists or terrorism. Stories of why they are disgruntled make for good political hay but do little else. Because eventually the terrorists will strike a target you beleive in, wether it be your country or an organization like the UN. Will you suddenly get retrospective and point out all the bad points of the UN or the country attacked ? I doubt it.
Also the big story has been overlooked. Mostly what is attacking the US and now UN is NOT loyal Baathists or Saddamn henchmen. They are part of it but today's style attack had Jihadi written all over it. A completely different M.O than what even Saddamn's disciples use. The electriciity, water, oil, aid, etc. is being cut by these same people who wish to have the Iraqi's suffer, impose deaths on US and Allied troops in an effort to embarass and goad us into leaving. The press has been spood fed it without realizing it. And we get stories of water and electric shortages, gee I wonder why ? could it be that some Jihadi from Saudi Arabia crossed the border and decided to blow up the water supply ? Nah, couldn't be it, it must be the Iraqi resistance because we're opressing the Iraiqi's and not doing enough. Today they exposed the belly of the beast in what we are dealing with. In genral it's not the average Iriaqi, in some cases it's the loyalist holdouts but they are few and far between and getting less popular since they are on the run and running out of volunteers to try and kill Americans, the average Iraqi wants to get on with life and make it better. Enter the Jihadi whacko's from all corners.
That is what we are now dealing with. It's not due to lack of resources, it's not lack of planning, it's not what wrongs were done in the past nor is it due to lack of effort. It's got to do with simple minded religious zealots who are hate filled and biggoted people ,blowing up an organization there to help other Muslims. Perhaps now some understand that it has less to do with politics and more with simple evil zealotry and a desire to not see freedom take hold threatining their theocracies.Yet, we'll be inundated with reasons ast to why Americans are attacked, we won't hear much theory on why other nations and now the UN are. No we must appease the terrorists and sabotuer's, it must be our fault for being there and removing a mass murderer from power
I think you're making the mistake that is common to most conservatives in that you think everyone else thinks like you do. It seems to me you don't really understand what makes someone choose terrorism at all.
Terrorism is not a war. If they wanted to fight a war, they'd go to war. Terrorism is at it's root a propoganda campaign. The goal is not to destroy the enemy or even cripple it. Generally, when one takes to terrorism, such a thing isn't even a realistic option. rather the goal is to demoralize your enemy and convince them to abandon the fight because even though they will win, the victory will never prove worthwhile.
So why do they attack non-American targets? Because they can. The key concept here is "soft targets". Did the people that carried out this latest bombing make a distinction between the U.N. and the U.S. or did they just see it as a "Western" target. Are Americans really going to look at this bombing and say, "Oh, it's no big deal. They weren't after us. They must be mad at the U.N. for something"? I rather doubt anyone really thinks that.
But let's go back to what I was saying before. The goal isn't to get the U.S. out of there by destroying everything in sight that is American. The goal is to get the U.S. out via propoganda. To that end, it doesn't entirely matter who they bomb. It's still clearly a reaction to the Western presence which is being led by the U.S.
Now it's quite possible there is a mastermind somewhere manipulating this whole propoganda campaign and their aim is to drive the U.S. out via direct attacks, indirect attacks, and sabotage with the intent of keeping the population restless. But even so, that's all the more reason why we should have reconsidered ever having gone in there in the first place. Now we have a big mess to deal with and not a lot of worldwide support to help deal with it.
It's because of two things, one for many it's a simplistic dislike, disdain and even hate for the US. Two, it's moralizing of that act as a way to voice displeasure with that country so terrorism is given legitimacy because although they dislike the terrorist methods they see them as a voice or even equalizer. In short, we dislike it but you had it coming because of _____ , _____, ______ etc. etc.
As for this bit of hogwash. You'd like to believe that any criticism towards what is happening is simply the product of some unreasonable hatred of one's own country. Then all you have to do is claim to love your country and you're automatically in the right without having to put any more thought into it. But this is not the case. The people who disagree with this are Americans just as much as you are. And you have to really care about something to bother finding it's faults and working to try and get them corrected. There are things in this world that I hate and think are just plain stupid and as a result I generally avoid them and try not to waste my time even debating about them. But you can't write me off as simply being a product of some unreasonable hate. What I say, I say out of strong disagreement. I say it because I believe it is doing harm to something I most definitely care about. And it's only because I do care that I don't just write it off and find something better to do with my time.
As for your second theory, if you're doing something, and someone starts bothering you because of what you're doing, it's simply pure arrogance to think the only solution to the problem is to continue on as you were and crush anyone who's bothering you about it. Even if they're expressing themselves inappropriately, there may be a lot of value to defusing the situation to at least listen to what they're saying anyway and not dismiss it entirely just because you don't like how they said it. You can't assume that just because someone resorts to terrorism that their complaints must be without validity. I know you like to believe that they're just evil fanatics raised that way from birth, but didn't we get over that way of thinking after the Cold War? Remember when we were raised to believe that the Russians, every single one of them, hated us and wanted to see us all dead? And how true was that? So yes, if someone is attacking me, I would like to find out why and possibly I can use that knowledge to end the fight.
I think you're making the mistake that is common to most conservatives in that you think everyone else thinks like you do.
Where did I say that ? I'm merely analyzing and making opinions on what other people say.
It seems to me you don't really understand what makes someone choose terrorism at all.
And you do ? You mean like the time you told me the religious element isn't that big a part of terrorism, right, lol. Look, I don't have all the answers but I've studied it enough to know in general what makes these thugs tick.
Terrorism is not a war. If they wanted to fight a war, they'd go to war.
Wrong, they do it because they don't have the large numbers nor equipment needed for an all out traditional war. but make no mistake about it, it's a war.
Terrorism is at it's root a propoganda campaign. The goal is not to destroy the enemy or even cripple it. Generally, when one takes to terrorism, such a thing isn't even a realistic option. rather the goal is to demoralize your enemy and convince them to abandon the fight because even though they will win, the victory will never prove worthwhile.
You also just generally described the goals of guerilla warfare which is war too, so is terrorism.
So why do they attack non-American targets? Because they can. The key concept here is "soft targets".
You were one of the ones looking to our foriegn policy as a reason for being attacked, now when the UN is we apparently don't need to look at them, they were simply attacked because they could, sound analysis.
Did the people that carried out this latest bombing make a distinction between the U.N. and the U.S. or did they just see it as a "Western" target.
The UN is not a western target, it's a world wide organization. Syria and Cuba chair the human rights commission for god's sake, it's not western at all.
Are Americans really going to look at this bombing and say, "Oh, it's no big deal. They weren't after us. They must be mad at the U.N. for something"? I rather doubt anyone really thinks that.
Never was my point, nor did I write that. My point was that after 9-11 there were a plethora of monday morning quarterbacks looking at our foreign policy as to why we were attacked. Why no wondering about the UN's policies or Bali, Germany or other nations when they are attacked ? Oh that's right, I forgot it's because you said they could that explains it then.
But let's go back to what I was saying before. The goal isn't to get the U.S. out of there by destroying everything in sight that is American. The goal is to get the U.S. out via propoganda.
Dead Americans, blowing up infastructure, intimidating those who cooperate with us and shooting our soilders when they are in line buying a can of pop isn't propoganda, it's war. Guerilla warfare. Propoganda is what Goerbils did. Shooting aid workers isn't propoganda.
To that end, it doesn't entirely matter who they bomb. It's still clearly a reaction to the Western presence which is being led by the U.S.
Again, the UN is not a "Western" organization or prescence. The people their from the UN in fact are numerous from other non western nations.
Now it's quite possible there is a mastermind somewhere manipulating this whole propoganda campaign and their aim is to drive the U.S. out via direct attacks, indirect attacks, and sabotage with the intent of keeping the population restless.
That's exactly what they want. That's been their goal from day one, it's been their goal in many other places they've attacked us. They want us out. We gave them every reason in the past to beleive that's exactly what we'd do. Kill a few Americans and they'll lose their stomach to finish the job and they'll go home and they can continue ruling over everyone. They're wrong this time, we aren't leaving.
But even so, that's all the more reason why we should have reconsidered ever having gone in there in the first place. Now we have a big mess to deal with and not a lot of worldwide support to help deal with it.
The UN bobming will backfire on the terrorist thugs. They went after a world organization whose only purpose was to help the people there, perhaps some will see finally after this episode that they'll attack even those there to help, even their fellow Muslims, they don't care, yet others simply want to turn a blind eye and "not go there", that's the easy approach and has been tried, it doesn't work.
You'd like to believe that any criticism towards what is happening is simply the product of some unreasonable hatred of one's own country. Then all you have to do is claim to love your country and you're automatically in the right without having to put any more thought into it.
Ummm, Bullshit, can you read ? Go back and read it again. I said "It's because of two things, one for many it's a simplistic dislike, disdain and even hate for the US." So it's dislike, disdain and yes hatred in SOME cases. Mainly I was referring to some of the people from other countries I've spoken to. Also their was plenty analysis of foreig policy as to why we were attacked, none now, thanks for making my point. I didn't nor was I naming you, I was speaking from my own personal experience.. K ?
In fact if you asked others on the board I have in many cases defended their rights to disagree and voice their opinion. With the exception of one poster I never resorted to calling them traitors etc. Stop putting words and or thoughts into something you're trying to attribute to me. You're simply wrong about it.
As for your second theory, if you're doing something, and someone starts bothering you because of what you're doing, it's simply pure arrogance to think the only solution to the problem is to continue on as you were and crush anyone who's bothering you about it. Even if they're expressing themselves inappropriately,
Yea, they were just expressing themsleves inappropriately when they blew up the UN, they were just acting inapropriatley when they shredded people alive and executed kids holding their dolls. Silly me.
there may be a lot of value to defusing the situation to at least listen to what they're saying anyway and not dismiss it entirely just because you don't like how they said it.
It's not what they say, it's what they do, see above.
You can't assume that just because someone resorts to terrorism that their complaints must be without validity.
Their complaints become invalid when they resort to terrorism. You might have wronged me, let's say you cheated me out of money and refused to pay. So I decide to kill your family and rape your wife. Still willing to listen to my complaint ? I guess killing your family and raping your wife would just be me expressing myslef innapropriatley.
I know you like to believe that they're just evil fanatics raised that way from birth, but didn't we get over that way of thinking after the Cold War? Remember when we were raised to believe that the Russians, every single one of them, hated us and wanted to see us all dead? And how true was that? So yes, if someone is attacking me, I would like to find out why and possibly I can use that knowledge to end the fight.
Spend sometime reading about Maddrasas. Spend some time reading the books they read to their children, spend some time listening the the sermons the Imams give and get back to me on that one when you have an idea what you're talking about.
Why would you say that? It's my analysis. But here's an example...
The UN is not a western target, it's a world wide organization. Syria and Cuba chair the human rights commission for god's sake, it's not western at all.
Yes, YOU know that. What makes you think they know all that and know to make such distinctions? I would guess the majority of terrorists are not that bright or well read or they would find a better solution to their problems.
You mean like the time you told me the religious element isn't that big a part of terrorism, right, lol.
I still say religion is the excuse and not the reason.
but make no mistake about it, it's a war.
You may look at it as a war. Bush may look at it as a war. There is even some guerilla warfare taking place. But terrorism in general does not share the same objectives or tactics as warfare does. That's why trying to treat it as a war is an iffy prospect at best.
You were one of the ones looking to our foriegn policy as a reason for being attacked, now when the UN is we apparently don't need to look at them, they were simply attacked because they could, sound analysis.
You're misunderstanding. The attack against the U.N. was an attack against America, even if the target wasn't itself entirely American. Just like a criminal might take an innocent bystander hostage. That hostage doesn't necessarily have to have a connection to you for you to listen to what the criminal says in order to keep harm from coming to that hostage. Likewise terrorists might attack someone totally innocent in reaction to what the U.S. is doing in order to create outrage. One can rationalize that if soldiers are being killed, well they signed uop for that risk. But if innocents are being killed, people are more likely to demand action. I will agree with you though that's entirely likely such a strategy will backfire just as it did with 9/11.
Why no wondering about the UN's policies or Bali, Germany or other nations when they are attacked ?
Because you're the only who doesn't already know the answer. It's not who you attack. It's who you blame for making you want to attack someone. Again, it's not a war, it's a propoganda campaign.
Propoganda is what Goerbils did. Shooting aid workers isn't propoganda.
It's a different world now. If you can't see how things have changed, then go on thinking that the terrorists are mad at the UN and Jordan for some unknown reason.
Again, the UN is not a "Western" organization or prescence.
If you're there, it's a war. If you're daughters are raped and sons shredded, it's a war. You have propaganda and terrorism confused.
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect  Â
terrorism
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
You're misunderstanding. The attack against the U.N. was an attack against America, even if the target wasn't itself entirely American.
Ahh, So the 30 plus European tourists who were held hostage were only done so because they were really attacking America ?
So the Bali bombing was really a way to voice displeasure with America ?
Warfare:
The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict. Military operations marked by a specific characteristic: guerrilla warfare; chemical warfare. A state of disharmony or conflict; strife: constant spousal warfare in the household. Acts undertaken to destroy or undermine the strength of another: political warfare. Â Â
The UN is not a western target, it's a world wide organization. Syria and Cuba chair the human rights commission for god's sake, it's not western at all.
Yes, YOU know that. What makes you think they know all that and know to make such distinctions? I would guess the majority of terrorists are not that bright or well read or they would find a better solution to their problems.
You would hope that they know who they are bombing if they want to achieve a specific result. If they don't even know who they are bombing what makes you think talking to them would achieve anything?
You would hope they know who they are bombing if they want to achieve a specific result. If they don't even know who they are bombing what makes you think talking to them would achieve anything?
LOL, c'mon they were just expressing themselves innapropriatley ;)
People with ideas like you have in this matter JT, generally don't end up in positions of U.S. policy and/or military authority. Both require a certain discipline.
They might have room in Saddam's army ideas like that.
Here we are, five months after the war in Iraq began, and we haven't yet solved all of that country's problems. Who would have thought that we would?
Apparently a significant section of the American media either thought that we would or is simply piling on the Bush administration, in hopes of bringing back the Democrats in 2004.
fold wrote this: Know what JT? Unless you are willing to put on a uniform and actually participate in this endless-war, then you have no right to even make such a statement.
and then fold wrote this: First, I never said you DIDN'T have the "Right to Say" anything.
It's hard to hold on to humanity, when they blow up innocent people, especially children.
What's your alternative?
Do you think they'll listen to reason?
Do you think they'll listen to traditional use of force?
If you have an answer, I'd like to know it. I don't expect that you'd be in expert on such things, I'm certainly not, but I don't see any other alternative.
We've seen how well traditional and not so traditional methods work in Israel.
Maybe it's time to get extreme with the extremists.
I think we have held onto our humanity quite well. The efforts we've undertaken and the methods used have been well moderated IMO.
I think perhaps what JT was getting at was a difference in tactics. I can't speak for him but IMO what we are doing currently in Iraq is working quite well. Now, before you jump all over it, yes there's problems. However it takes time, alot of time. It's been 6 months, in 6 months we've gone from full combat mode to rebuilding and dealing with asshole baathist holdouts and imported jihaidiots, The patience level of some would rival that of a 5 year old. Most of the people in Iraq don't want these morons around anymore than we would want them tooling around the Twin Cities. Most look at them as we look at drug dealers and other criminals. The people are the ones helping to turn these people over. We wouldn't have caught a majority of the most wanted without the help of the Iraqi people. That get's overlooked IMO and should tell people something.
Doing this kind of work in those conditions is boring at times, always tedious, always dangerous and delicate. Most of what they are doing is acting on tips. Some tips are bogus but it seems they've gotten better at weeding out the ones looking for money in return for bogus info. So now you have to go on a sweep and conduct S&D missions without upsetting the neighbors all the while doing your best to keep your troops safe, it's a tough tough job. This part of the campaign is harder than the other in many aspects. I'd rather know who my enemy is and have a clear objective than to have to be in constant wonder and suspicion, in short it sucks but it's the most vital part of the mission in many ways.
People want fast results in Iraq. Wanna speed things up ? O.K, we can have Sadddamn and co and everything else wrapped up militarily speaking in less than a year. How you ask ? Declare very very strict marshall law. Conduct sweeps of entire towns and go house to house. Arrest anyone you have the slightest suspicion over. Impose strict movement rules to isolate the holouts and jihaidiots. Taking fire ? No problem, call in a B-52 strike to calm shit down. Controll all the media, block fundie Islamic boradcasts, have one channel and one newspaper instead of 150. Sound good ?
Now, if we do this we will now alienate the entire population, we win the battle but lose the war. We can have our troops out of there in 6 months, we can save more lives on our side and come home. Mission accomplished......Sorta, We do that and the extremists take right back over and we'll have to deal with them again down the road. People say Bush is losing the peace. That's a farce. For one their hasn't been peace in that country for 30 years. Also it is working, slowly but surely and as long as people stay patieint (good luck with some). The attacks are acts of desparation. Their only goal is to get us to lose our patience and either A) do as I stated above and make us ratchet up our operatons and therefore turn the population against us (why do you think they're blowing up power and water ?) and B) Have the constant media and public pressure get us to pull our troops out of there, thereby leaving the door open for the jihaidiots and baathie's to walk right back in.
As for Bill's point he's right about one thing. Nobody wants, likes or enjoys a war, it's a sad and disgusting waste, there isn't a day that goes buy I don't think about it. Where I disagree is that sometimes yes it calls for to borrow a phrase, kicking some ass. A time for peace a time for war. I'd be happy to never see it again. Sadly we all probably will. When someone says that does it mean they want us to go fighting wars everywhere ? I doubt it for most. What it means to me is that if you're going to do it, do it the right way. Don't impose unrealistic goals and have our troops fighting with one hand tied behind their back as the poor guys in Vietnam had to deal with. IMO I think right now they're approaching it correctly.
Different places and scenarios call for different measures. Ie: I think it's high time our government stopped even dealing with the Palestinains. I think it's high time we told Israel to do whatever they want. The Pals have litearly blown it every time. So in a case like that I think it's time to take different measures and yes kick some ass. They've tried every other way. I don't think it means you stoop to their level by targeting civilians either. Holding onto humanity is important and becoming like your enemy self defeating.
Have you forgotten JT? You don't know shit until you put a uniform on. I side with JT. Diplomacy seldom works anymore. It's time for the U.S. to be extreme.
"Gee, no kidding? Obviously, I meant that his impeachment-trial FAILED and he was forgiven his blowjob, in that he was Acquitted, by a Republican Controlled Congress. But if we could have had a "recall", you think he would have lost his office to that recall-effort? Absolutely not, since his numbers were in the 70% range when he was acquitted." - Fold
Fold, when did Republicans hold 67 seats in the Senate?
There were more votes to convict him than to spare him. His saving grace is that it takes 67 votes and not a majority to convict.
That aside, I really don't understand the recall in CA. If you oust the guy, why wouldn't the Lt. Gov take over? What the hell does the Lt. Gov do? Sounds like they are wasting money on an extra position to me.
Sad news about the UN being bombed and the bus in Israel blown up.
It got me to thinking about a few things. One is this, I believe that out of every bad comes a something good, (I'll get to that in a second) for if you learn nothing or don't grow stronger from tragedy then the other side has won.
People have a million different reasons why the US was attacked on 9-11. Rarely though is it asked or wondered aloud why other places that have nothing or little to do with the US are attacked. An embassy here or there A resort in Bali, German and other tourists being held hostage etc. etc. Why no wondering or theorizing on why they deserved it or in softer tones asking What motivated the attackers into hitting that target ? People felt free to list all the reasons why the US is under attack but strangely silent when terrorism targets other countries. Why no scrutinization about their foreign policy ?
It's because of two things, one for many it's a simplistic dislike, disdain and even hate for the US. Two, it's moralizing of that act as a way to voice displeasure with that country so terrorism is given legitimacy because although they dislike the terrorist methods they see them as a voice or even equalizer. In short, we dislike it but you had it coming because of _____ , _____, ______ etc. etc.
So what can we learn from the tagedy of the UN being attacked ? It's sad and tragic that someone would feel the need to kill not only fellow citizens and muslims but an organization that's trying to help Iraq get on it's feet again after 30 years of horrid and murderous dictatorship. What does that tell us about terrorists and fanatics ? Will we see the articles and handwringing and analysis about What did the UN do to anger the terrorists ? No, probably not, if it had been the US targeted as it has been it's because we're unwanted imperialists. Nevermind most Iraqi's want us there. My guess, when the presses roll tomorrow it will be the US not doing enough to protect the UN. Were we not doing enough to protect our own troops when they're killed ? Then we'll hear silence, again, they deserved it for being there or they'll disguise it by simply pointing to it as evidence that we A) don't have enough troops. B) Didn't plan well enough and C) Are unwanted by the Iraqi's. The sudden support and caring for our troops by this crowd is odd.
Todays bombings should prove one thing. One is that no matter how many troops you have, you can't stop everything. One or two people can and did create alot of mayhem. Troops on every corner would do very very little to stop that. The only thing you can do is target the leadership. It doesn't matter what intentions even are to terrorists, the UN was there to help. Yet they killed them too. Will we see stories about Iraqi's who don't want the UN and Unicef in Iraq ? No. That's the danger of legitimizing terrorists or terrorism. Stories of why they are disgruntled make for good political hay but do little else. Because eventually the terrorists will strike a target you beleive in, wether it be your country or an organization like the UN. Will you suddenly get retrospective and point out all the bad points of the UN or the country attacked ? I doubt it.
Also the big story has been overlooked. Mostly what is attacking the US and now UN is NOT loyal Baathists or Saddamn henchmen. They are part of it but today's style attack had Jihadi written all over it. A completely different M.O than what even Saddamn's disciples use. The electriciity, water, oil, aid, etc. is being cut by these same people who wish to have the Iraqi's suffer, impose deaths on US and Allied troops in an effort to embarass and goad us into leaving. The press has been spood fed it without realizing it. And we get stories of water and electric shortages, gee I wonder why ? could it be that some Jihadi from Saudi Arabia crossed the border and decided to blow up the water supply ? Nah, couldn't be it, it must be the Iraqi resistance because we're opressing the Iraiqi's and not doing enough. Today they exposed the belly of the beast in what we are dealing with. In genral it's not the average Iriaqi, in some cases it's the loyalist holdouts but they are few and far between and getting less popular since they are on the run and running out of volunteers to try and kill Americans, the average Iraqi wants to get on with life and make it better. Enter the Jihadi whacko's from all corners.
That is what we are now dealing with. It's not due to lack of resources, it's not lack of planning, it's not what wrongs were done in the past nor is it due to lack of effort. It's got to do with simple minded religious zealots who are hate filled and biggoted people ,blowing up an organization there to help other Muslims. Perhaps now some understand that it has less to do with politics and more with simple evil zealotry and a desire to not see freedom take hold threatining their theocracies.Yet, we'll be inundated with reasons ast to why Americans are attacked, we won't hear much theory on why other nations and now the UN are. No we must appease the terrorists and sabotuer's, it must be our fault for being there and removing a mass murderer from power
Superb, Rob, simply superb. Kudos to you.
Great post, Rob.
Thanks Muskwa & JT
I think you're making the mistake that is common to most conservatives in that you think everyone else thinks like you do. It seems to me you don't really understand what makes someone choose terrorism at all.
Terrorism is not a war. If they wanted to fight a war, they'd go to war. Terrorism is at it's root a propoganda campaign. The goal is not to destroy the enemy or even cripple it. Generally, when one takes to terrorism, such a thing isn't even a realistic option. rather the goal is to demoralize your enemy and convince them to abandon the fight because even though they will win, the victory will never prove worthwhile.
So why do they attack non-American targets? Because they can. The key concept here is "soft targets". Did the people that carried out this latest bombing make a distinction between the U.N. and the U.S. or did they just see it as a "Western" target. Are Americans really going to look at this bombing and say, "Oh, it's no big deal. They weren't after us. They must be mad at the U.N. for something"? I rather doubt anyone really thinks that.
But let's go back to what I was saying before. The goal isn't to get the U.S. out of there by destroying everything in sight that is American. The goal is to get the U.S. out via propoganda. To that end, it doesn't entirely matter who they bomb. It's still clearly a reaction to the Western presence which is being led by the U.S.
Now it's quite possible there is a mastermind somewhere manipulating this whole propoganda campaign and their aim is to drive the U.S. out via direct attacks, indirect attacks, and sabotage with the intent of keeping the population restless. But even so, that's all the more reason why we should have reconsidered ever having gone in there in the first place. Now we have a big mess to deal with and not a lot of worldwide support to help deal with it.
Terrorism is not a war.
It is a war.
If they wanted to fight a war, they'd go to war.
They know if they did that they'd lose.
Now we have a big mess to deal with and not a lot of worldwide support to help deal with it.
The mess was there to be dealt with before. You want to put your head back in the sand and hope they bomb someone else's ass.
Allison Wonderland 8/20/03 10:41am
Why is it again that they can do it but we can't?
Why can't we go in and kill the homicide bombers entire family?
Now we have a big mess to deal with and not a lot of worldwide support to help deal with it.
Even the UN is on board now. If you recall, they weren't on board when this began, and they are by no means Pro-US.
"Why can't we go in and kill the homicide bombers entire family?"
Decency.
You don't want the United States to be on the side of decency?
It's because of two things, one for many it's a simplistic dislike, disdain and even hate for the US. Two, it's moralizing of that act as a way to voice displeasure with that country so terrorism is given legitimacy because although they dislike the terrorist methods they see them as a voice or even equalizer. In short, we dislike it but you had it coming because of _____ , _____, ______ etc. etc.
As for this bit of hogwash. You'd like to believe that any criticism towards what is happening is simply the product of some unreasonable hatred of one's own country. Then all you have to do is claim to love your country and you're automatically in the right without having to put any more thought into it. But this is not the case. The people who disagree with this are Americans just as much as you are. And you have to really care about something to bother finding it's faults and working to try and get them corrected. There are things in this world that I hate and think are just plain stupid and as a result I generally avoid them and try not to waste my time even debating about them. But you can't write me off as simply being a product of some unreasonable hate. What I say, I say out of strong disagreement. I say it because I believe it is doing harm to something I most definitely care about. And it's only because I do care that I don't just write it off and find something better to do with my time.
As for your second theory, if you're doing something, and someone starts bothering you because of what you're doing, it's simply pure arrogance to think the only solution to the problem is to continue on as you were and crush anyone who's bothering you about it. Even if they're expressing themselves inappropriately, there may be a lot of value to defusing the situation to at least listen to what they're saying anyway and not dismiss it entirely just because you don't like how they said it. You can't assume that just because someone resorts to terrorism that their complaints must be without validity. I know you like to believe that they're just evil fanatics raised that way from birth, but didn't we get over that way of thinking after the Cold War? Remember when we were raised to believe that the Russians, every single one of them, hated us and wanted to see us all dead? And how true was that? So yes, if someone is attacking me, I would like to find out why and possibly I can use that knowledge to end the fight.
Why is it again that they can do it but we can't?
Why can't we go in and kill the homicide bombers entire family?
Have you never heard of not sinking to their level? Do you want to sell your soul for a bit of safety?
The day the United States undertook such activity as a matter of policy, it wouldn't be my country anymore.
Decency.
That's well and good when the other side reciprocates.
You don't want the United States to be on the side of decency?
I find it very decent to retaliate for a wrong committed. I'm not saying we should willy nilly kill innocent people like they are doing.
Have you never heard of not sinking to their level?
Screw that moral superiority bullshit. Lets kick some ass!
Do you want to sell your soul for a bit of safety?
I have no soul.
Sometimes it is pure arrogance on the part of the person complaining about what it is that is being done.
The day the United States undertook such activity as a matter of policy, it wouldn't be my country anymore.
I thought that happened on January 20, 2001.
Where did I say that ? I'm merely analyzing and making opinions on what other people say.
And you do ? You mean like the time you told me the religious element isn't that big a part of terrorism, right, lol. Look, I don't have all the answers but I've studied it enough to know in general what makes these thugs tick.
Wrong, they do it because they don't have the large numbers nor equipment needed for an all out traditional war. but make no mistake about it, it's a war.
You also just generally described the goals of guerilla warfare which is war too, so is terrorism.
You were one of the ones looking to our foriegn policy as a reason for being attacked, now when the UN is we apparently don't need to look at them, they were simply attacked because they could, sound analysis.
The UN is not a western target, it's a world wide organization. Syria and Cuba chair the human rights commission for god's sake, it's not western at all.
Never was my point, nor did I write that. My point was that after 9-11 there were a plethora of monday morning quarterbacks looking at our foreign policy as to why we were attacked. Why no wondering about the UN's policies or Bali, Germany or other nations when they are attacked ? Oh that's right, I forgot it's because you said they could that explains it then.
Dead Americans, blowing up infastructure, intimidating those who cooperate with us and shooting our soilders when they are in line buying a can of pop isn't propoganda, it's war. Guerilla warfare. Propoganda is what Goerbils did. Shooting aid workers isn't propoganda.
Again, the UN is not a "Western" organization or prescence. The people their from the UN in fact are numerous from other non western nations.
That's exactly what they want. That's been their goal from day one, it's been their goal in many other places they've attacked us. They want us out. We gave them every reason in the past to beleive that's exactly what we'd do. Kill a few Americans and they'll lose their stomach to finish the job and they'll go home and they can continue ruling over everyone. They're wrong this time, we aren't leaving.
The UN bobming will backfire on the terrorist thugs. They went after a world organization whose only purpose was to help the people there, perhaps some will see finally after this episode that they'll attack even those there to help, even their fellow Muslims, they don't care, yet others simply want to turn a blind eye and "not go there", that's the easy approach and has been tried, it doesn't work.
The UN bobming will backfire on the terrorist thugs.
Oh Yeah!
They just bit themselves in the ass.
Allison Wonderland 8/20/03 11:00am
Great way to start AW, nice going.
Ummm, Bullshit, can you read ? Go back and read it again. I said "It's because of two things, one for many it's a simplistic dislike, disdain and even hate for the US." So it's dislike, disdain and yes hatred in SOME cases. Mainly I was referring to some of the people from other countries I've spoken to. Also their was plenty analysis of foreig policy as to why we were attacked, none now, thanks for making my point. I didn't nor was I naming you, I was speaking from my own personal experience.. K ?
In fact if you asked others on the board I have in many cases defended their rights to disagree and voice their opinion. With the exception of one poster I never resorted to calling them traitors etc. Stop putting words and or thoughts into something you're trying to attribute to me. You're simply wrong about it.
Yea, they were just expressing themsleves inappropriately when they blew up the UN, they were just acting inapropriatley when they shredded people alive and executed kids holding their dolls. Silly me.
It's not what they say, it's what they do, see above.
Their complaints become invalid when they resort to terrorism. You might have wronged me, let's say you cheated me out of money and refused to pay. So I decide to kill your family and rape your wife. Still willing to listen to my complaint ? I guess killing your family and raping your wife would just be me expressing myslef innapropriatley.
Spend sometime reading about Maddrasas. Spend some time reading the books they read to their children, spend some time listening the the sermons the Imams give and get back to me on that one when you have an idea what you're talking about.
Where did I say that ?
Why would you say that? It's my analysis. But here's an example...
The UN is not a western target, it's a world wide organization. Syria and Cuba chair the human rights commission for god's sake, it's not western at all.
Yes, YOU know that. What makes you think they know all that and know to make such distinctions? I would guess the majority of terrorists are not that bright or well read or they would find a better solution to their problems.
You mean like the time you told me the religious element isn't that big a part of terrorism, right, lol.
I still say religion is the excuse and not the reason.
but make no mistake about it, it's a war.
You may look at it as a war. Bush may look at it as a war. There is even some guerilla warfare taking place. But terrorism in general does not share the same objectives or tactics as warfare does. That's why trying to treat it as a war is an iffy prospect at best.
You were one of the ones looking to our foriegn policy as a reason for being attacked, now when the UN is we apparently don't need to look at them, they were simply attacked because they could, sound analysis.
You're misunderstanding. The attack against the U.N. was an attack against America, even if the target wasn't itself entirely American. Just like a criminal might take an innocent bystander hostage. That hostage doesn't necessarily have to have a connection to you for you to listen to what the criminal says in order to keep harm from coming to that hostage. Likewise terrorists might attack someone totally innocent in reaction to what the U.S. is doing in order to create outrage. One can rationalize that if soldiers are being killed, well they signed uop for that risk. But if innocents are being killed, people are more likely to demand action. I will agree with you though that's entirely likely such a strategy will backfire just as it did with 9/11.
Why no wondering about the UN's policies or Bali, Germany or other nations when they are attacked ?
Because you're the only who doesn't already know the answer. It's not who you attack. It's who you blame for making you want to attack someone. Again, it's not a war, it's a propoganda campaign.
Propoganda is what Goerbils did. Shooting aid workers isn't propoganda.
It's a different world now. If you can't see how things have changed, then go on thinking that the terrorists are mad at the UN and Jordan for some unknown reason.
Again, the UN is not a "Western" organization or prescence.
Are you sure they feel that same way?
AW,
If you're there, it's a war. If you're daughters are raped and sons shredded, it's a war. You have propaganda and terrorism confused.
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
Ahh, So the 30 plus European tourists who were held hostage were only done so because they were really attacking America ?
So the Bali bombing was really a way to voice displeasure with America ?
The UN is not a western target, it's a world wide organization. Syria and Cuba chair the human rights commission for god's sake, it's not western at all.
Yes, YOU know that. What makes you think they know all that and know to make such distinctions? I would guess the majority of terrorists are not that bright or well read or they would find a better solution to their problems.
You would hope that they know who they are bombing if they want to achieve a specific result. If they don't even know who they are bombing what makes you think talking to them would achieve anything?
LOL, c'mon they were just expressing themselves innapropriatley ;)
Sorry Bill, I made a mistake. I stand corrected. The vote on obstruction of justice was a tie. I must be having a "senior" moment.
You notice how AW defends everyone's actions but the U.S.?
You notice how AW legitimizes everyone's actions but the U.S.?
"Terrorism is not war"...wake the hell up boy!
Go to Iraq or Afghanistan with your liberal morals during war and see how long it takes before your body comes back in a bag.
You're something else man!!
FU
Who the hell are you to tell me what I have a right to say?
are you also willing to kill Tim McVeigh's entire family?
are you also willing to kill Tim McVeigh's entire family?
If we were at war with a group of terrorists that included McVeighs family, yes.
I fail to see the difference.
This so-called "war on terror" is not aimed at any one group, is it?
I thought it was against all terrorists.
are you saying we have a war on all "non-American" terrorists?
People with ideas like you have in this matter JT, generally don't end up in positions of U.S. policy and/or military authority. Both require a certain discipline.
They might have room in Saddam's army ideas like that.
I fail to see the difference.
You're right, we should kill them as well.
People with ideas like you have in this matter JT, generally don't end up in positions of U.S. policy and military authority.
And that's why we will lose this war on terrorism.
I'm not the one advocating killing the families of terrorists.
I meant you're right, there is no distinction.
so, you aresaying that we should kill the entire McVeigh family...
better check that family tree.
so, you are saying that we should kill the entire McVeigh family...
Yes, I am. You're not, I am.
so...where do you draw the line when you say "family"?
and where do you draw the line when you say "terrorist"?
Here we are, five months after the war in Iraq began, and we haven't yet solved all of that country's problems. Who would have thought that we would?
Apparently a significant section of the American media either thought that we would or is simply piling on the Bush administration, in hopes of bringing back the Democrats in 2004.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030821.shtml
fold wrote this: Know what JT? Unless you are willing to put on a uniform and actually participate in this endless-war, then you have no right to even make such a statement.
and then fold wrote this: First, I never said you DIDN'T have the "Right to Say" anything.
Typical
"And that's why we will lose this war on terrorism."
These are trying times, JT. Holding onto humanity is more important now than ever. Hamas and the Martyrs Brigade do not know that.
Neither do you, evidently.
If we defeat terrorism, what have we won, if, as a country, the U.S. loses its soul along with it?
It's hard to hold on to humanity, when they blow up innocent people, especially children.
What's your alternative?
Do you think they'll listen to reason?
Do you think they'll listen to traditional use of force?
If you have an answer, I'd like to know it. I don't expect that you'd be in expert on such things, I'm certainly not, but I don't see any other alternative.
We've seen how well traditional and not so traditional methods work in Israel.
Maybe it's time to get extreme with the extremists.
"It's hard to hold on to humanity, when they blow up innocent people, especially children. What's your alternative?"
To holding onto humanity? -- there is no alternative.
Sure their is. It all depends on your definition of humanity.
I'm willing to bet yours is not the same as mine.
I think we have held onto our humanity quite well. The efforts we've undertaken and the methods used have been well moderated IMO.
I think perhaps what JT was getting at was a difference in tactics. I can't speak for him but IMO what we are doing currently in Iraq is working quite well. Now, before you jump all over it, yes there's problems. However it takes time, alot of time. It's been 6 months, in 6 months we've gone from full combat mode to rebuilding and dealing with asshole baathist holdouts and imported jihaidiots, The patience level of some would rival that of a 5 year old. Most of the people in Iraq don't want these morons around anymore than we would want them tooling around the Twin Cities. Most look at them as we look at drug dealers and other criminals. The people are the ones helping to turn these people over. We wouldn't have caught a majority of the most wanted without the help of the Iraqi people. That get's overlooked IMO and should tell people something.
Doing this kind of work in those conditions is boring at times, always tedious, always dangerous and delicate. Most of what they are doing is acting on tips. Some tips are bogus but it seems they've gotten better at weeding out the ones looking for money in return for bogus info. So now you have to go on a sweep and conduct S&D missions without upsetting the neighbors all the while doing your best to keep your troops safe, it's a tough tough job. This part of the campaign is harder than the other in many aspects. I'd rather know who my enemy is and have a clear objective than to have to be in constant wonder and suspicion, in short it sucks but it's the most vital part of the mission in many ways.
People want fast results in Iraq. Wanna speed things up ? O.K, we can have Sadddamn and co and everything else wrapped up militarily speaking in less than a year. How you ask ? Declare very very strict marshall law. Conduct sweeps of entire towns and go house to house. Arrest anyone you have the slightest suspicion over. Impose strict movement rules to isolate the holouts and jihaidiots. Taking fire ? No problem, call in a B-52 strike to calm shit down. Controll all the media, block fundie Islamic boradcasts, have one channel and one newspaper instead of 150. Sound good ?
Now, if we do this we will now alienate the entire population, we win the battle but lose the war. We can have our troops out of there in 6 months, we can save more lives on our side and come home. Mission accomplished......Sorta, We do that and the extremists take right back over and we'll have to deal with them again down the road. People say Bush is losing the peace. That's a farce. For one their hasn't been peace in that country for 30 years. Also it is working, slowly but surely and as long as people stay patieint (good luck with some). The attacks are acts of desparation. Their only goal is to get us to lose our patience and either A) do as I stated above and make us ratchet up our operatons and therefore turn the population against us (why do you think they're blowing up power and water ?) and B) Have the constant media and public pressure get us to pull our troops out of there, thereby leaving the door open for the jihaidiots and baathie's to walk right back in.
As for Bill's point he's right about one thing. Nobody wants, likes or enjoys a war, it's a sad and disgusting waste, there isn't a day that goes buy I don't think about it. Where I disagree is that sometimes yes it calls for to borrow a phrase, kicking some ass. A time for peace a time for war. I'd be happy to never see it again. Sadly we all probably will. When someone says that does it mean they want us to go fighting wars everywhere ? I doubt it for most. What it means to me is that if you're going to do it, do it the right way. Don't impose unrealistic goals and have our troops fighting with one hand tied behind their back as the poor guys in Vietnam had to deal with. IMO I think right now they're approaching it correctly.
Different places and scenarios call for different measures. Ie: I think it's high time our government stopped even dealing with the Palestinains. I think it's high time we told Israel to do whatever they want. The Pals have litearly blown it every time. So in a case like that I think it's time to take different measures and yes kick some ass. They've tried every other way. I don't think it means you stoop to their level by targeting civilians either. Holding onto humanity is important and becoming like your enemy self defeating.
Have you forgotten JT? You don't know shit until you put a uniform on.
I side with JT. Diplomacy seldom works anymore. It's time for the U.S. to be extreme.
You're not in a position of authority, torepedo.
Thank heaven the people in charge have a little more discipline.
You and JT seem to view this as some kind of video game.
It's time for the U.S. to be extreme.
Torpedo wants the U.S. to drink more Mountain Dew while skating or snowboarding over outrageous terrain.
...and hook up with Lara Croft.
She's a tasty one.
You and JT seem to view this as some kind of video game.
Not at all. I sort of see it as "Kill or be Killed" and I wish it wasn't that way.
There's simply no reasoning or working with these people, I think recent developments in Israel & Iraq has shown that.
She's a tasty one.
You mean Angelina? Yeah, she's pretty hot, but she's such a freak.