War on Terror is Unwinnable

[RockNRollDawgie]

What some people don't understand that the War on Terror isn't a war which will be won by military but a war which is based on good work of intelligence agencies. intelligence agencies are the ones who can prevent a 2nd 9/11 .
Military actions at the wrong time or at the wrong place just support terrorism

A_Wanderer
You can't force a country to democracy. The democracy movement has to start in that country.

BRAVO! Exactly my feelings.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You can prevent 1000 terrorist attacks with your intelligence agencies but it only takes a single one to shatter the fascade oif safety, I would rather end the problems that are creating terrorists than have to sit on my hands watiting for an attack. The number 1 lesson of 9.11. is that fighting terrorism cannot be done by law enforcement and intelligence alone - it is a pity that many have not realized this yet.

 

[Klaus]

would rather end the problems that are creating terrorists than have to sit on my hands watiting for an attack.

I couldn't agree more!

Military, Inteligence and Foreign Policy have to play together to solve the problem.
Hypocracy in foreign politics simply feeds the terrorists because they can show potential followers that the other side is a "big satan" who dosn't act like he talks. (Example: supporting "good terrorists" to destabilize a country you disslike)

Intelligence is neccessary to prevent us from daily terrorist attacks, military is necessary to defend us against an IMMINENT threat.

Just look at Japan, South Korea and many other countries where this has happened.

Japan wanted to become a "western" country, Germany was allready a democracy before hitler (Weimarer Republik) (I'm sorry, i don't know much about the history of South Korea)

I think there are situations where a Military strike is necessary but i think military strikes against terrorism are overrated because you can't win against terrorists when you are bombing their bases. They are not structured like our military, it's like bombing a single country to destroy the internet - it simply wouldn't work.

It's no big deal if they call themself "Al-Quaida", "Islambuli-Brigades" or whatever, they don't need one big mastermind behind that. They don't need huge training camps, if they want to they could simply send their people as volunteers to the US army for some years to get the basic training they need.
These men are "powered by hate" and if we don't care about the sources of their hate, we are doomed.
Of course we can't make every single person happy in this world but we can stop the majority of people to support the extremists.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Their hate has nothing to do with Israeli - Arab conflict, or US imperialist colonialist whateverthefuckwordsomeacedemicwantistotossaroundist bullshit it has to do with the fascist death cult that Bin Laden and his ilk follow. They will kill for the sheer pleasure of it and the "divine right" they feel, the 9/11 hijackers were well off men, they don't fit the archetypal poor downtrodden terrorist that so many love to use because it shifts the blame from the mass murdering terrorist to the victim.

The only way to win is to defeat the ideology, the only way to do that is to stop it from spreading and remove its support - it is just like fighting communism, if you give people hope, some money and oppertunity they are less likely to support an authoritarian system, that is why I speak of a program on the scale of the Marshall plan to end the widespread support for Islamism, once that happens we can suceed in discrediting and eliminating it forever.

We are only doomed if we give up and decide not to liberate the world, wipe out despotism in all of its forms and stop appeasing terrorists by legitimizing their grievances.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer
I agree with you here too, i was just thinking what we could have done with the money for the Iraq war if it wasn't invested for bombs but for a future plan to raise the economic wealth in that region so that people feel that our way is the better and it's not worth dying to destroy our values.
This includes, of course, fair trade with the 3rd world. Not only in high-tech products but also in agricultural economics.
And even what the new EU president mentioned, accept it that it's valid that people want to immigrate in our countries for economic reasons

 

[A_Wanderer]

You cannot raise the economic wealth in the Arab world in its current state, the despotic regimes simply will not allow change because if people start to get richer they will get smarter, if they get smarter they may start to ask questions about why they get fucked over by corrupt leaders and they also might start working to overthrow them. Nothing can move forward there unless you have a clean slate, the only way to achieve that is by eliminating a significant player and pouring lots of resources into making it suceed. If Iraq suceeds over the next few decades it will encourage liberalization and democracy across the region and will win the war on terror, you cannot do this by cutting deals with dictators.

I doubt that many in the muslim world actually subscribe to the ideology of Al Qaeda, there are very few "hardcore" islamists. The Islamists offer something different than the corrupt regimes there now, that is why they are dangerous - people may have a glorious Islamic revolution but wind up decending deeper into despotism. To prevent this from happening one must introduce a competing ideology and show that it can work for all people - Christian, Jew, Hindu and Muslim. Sometimes freedom must be fought for and protected - it can be done. If Iraq is just able to establish a basic democracy with a free market in the next decade, even if there are islamic parties etc. I think the country will move forward and as it does it will move closer to where the west is. This will take decades, it will be difficult and it will cost money and lives but the alternative to this endevour is pure death and destruction and I do not want to see that come to pass.

 

[Salome]

well, I agree that if we eliminate all evil
bring education and food everywhere
and help everyone's economy along
that in the end this world will be a better place

so far we seem to mainly be busy replacing one evil with the other

 

[Salome]

this is not because we are blind or stupid btw
but because we only have so much time and resources ourselves

 

[A_Wanderer]

What is evil about replacing baathist Iraq with an agreeable interim government and eventually an elected one? Replacing Saddams thuggish regime with an interim government - which can be replaced when the people are given free and fair elections. Is this bizarro world? Is giving people votes and the right to worship freely and live their lives on par with genocide campaigns, torture operations and starvation of the people by bribing the UN?

That is an absolutely preposterous position and many Iraqi's would disagree with you very strongly.

I just want to know, how many people here actually want Iraq to fail outright to teach GWB a lesson?

 

[cydewaze]

What is evil about replacing baathist Iraq with an agreeable interim government and eventually an elected one?

Interesting. So it's now the US's job to invade every country with a leader it deems evil, and replace it's leader with a government we install? Not mentioning, of course, that the original reason for the invasion wasn't even about freeing the people.

Replacing Saddams thuggish regime with an interim government - which can be replaced when the people are given free and fair elections.

That's assuming we ever allow them to elect their own leaders, and chance that they might elect someone we don't like.

I just want to know, how many people here actually want Iraq to fail outright to teach GWB a lesson?

It's already failed, so the question is moot.

 

[Salome]

hey, I was in favour of the war against Iraq back then
and I still am
so if you want to label my ignorance then at least pick something that I can agree with

the war in Iraq itself was partly a result of backing Iraq against Iran
so don't act as if we haven't replaced evil by evil before

I have good hopes for Iraq
but I don't think terrorism was dealt too heavy a blow when Sadam was removed

 

[verte76]

A_Wanderer, I'll be damned if I want Iraq to fail to teach GWB a lesson or whatever. If they can pull off the elections in January and have people in Iraq actually go and elect a parliament, that will be a very positive development. How can I oppose this? I don't. I'm just thinking about the power structure in that part of the world, and also the annoying Sunni Wahhabists who have been causing trouble in the Sunni triangle in the Baghdad area. It's a complicated situation. Some powerful Iraqis want a theocracy, not a democracy. Grand Ayatollas have more power than the government does right now. I'm watching Sistani, because he's without a doubt the most powerful man in Iraq. Just today there was a U.S. strike in Fallujah and the people are angry. This fighting makes me nervous, because it's making the whole country politically unstable.

 

[BVS]

I just want to know, how many people here actually want Iraq to fail outright to teach GWB a lesson?

Yes, we're all a bunch of vendictive sons-of-bitches that would love to see the suffering of thousands in order to teach one man we don't agree with a lesson...come on!

 

[Klaus]

Salome

And don't forget that we created the Iran monster too in our fight against communism (and this wasn't even the most dangerous monster we created when we thought we fought for good)

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer

We could stop supporting dictators - even if they have oil.
Or at least force them to slow reforms -> democracy if they still want our support (troops/tech)

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

You can prevent 1000 terrorist attacks with your intelligence agencies but it only takes a single one to shatter the fascade oif safety, I would rather end the problems that are creating terrorists than have to sit on my hands watiting for an attack. The number 1 lesson of 9.11. is that fighting terrorism cannot be done by law enforcement and intelligence alone - it is a pity that many have not realized this yet.

Yep. It was proven with 9/11.
The FBI & CIA were too busy being secretive with each other than working
with each other.
Bureaucracy at its worse.
I don't know what the solution is.
A combination of intelligence and law
enforcement? Maybe the best bet is
iinfiltrating these terrorist groups
Fact is these terrorists hate us, and
everything we stand for.
Knocking out terrorist cells and getting
rid of the leaders does put a dent on it,
but it seems there's always some other
loonies to take their place.

 

[Klaus]

RockNRollDawgie

Knocking out terrorist cells and getting
rid of the leaders does put a dent on it,
but it seems there's always some other
loonies to take their place.

Of course there are allways people who take over the place of them.
You simply can't kill ideas, you can just convince people that their ideas are wrong

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I quote a left leaning person... when I say "Bush saying that the war on terrorism can't be won," as being one of the most sensible things he's said. IMO, people, especially on the side of the democrats, harping on Bush's recent comments, (and then saying "It can be won", "How can Bush say that?") just makes them look stupid.

 

[cydewaze]

Of course there are allways people who take over the place of them.
You simply can't kill ideas, you can just convince people that their ideas are wrong

Actually I think that having a war against an idea is a brilliant political idea. Unlike the old-fashioned wars, where you can determine progress by how much land you've occupied, how many ships you've sunk, etc, a war on an idea can make whatever progress you'd like it to.

If you need to win an election, you can claim you're winnng it. If you need funding, you can say you're not doing so well and need more money. Who's to say otherwise? It's genius.

 

[BVS]

I quote a left leaning person... when I say "Bush saying that the war on terrorism can't be won," as being one of the most sensible things he's said. IMO, people, especially on the side of the democrats, harping on Bush's recent comments, (and then saying "It can be won", "How can Bush say that?") just makes them look stupid.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

"After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism," said Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, "This is no time to declare defeat."

``Let me tell you something: We can, we must and we will win the war on terror,'' Kerry said.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Whoops, I screwed up how I was quoting or maybe paraphrasing.... I meant to say that I agree with this sentiment...

Bush saying, "that the war on terrorism can't be won," is one of the most sensible things he's said so far.

 

[Klaus]

cydewaze
Damn i haven thought of that one - bushs spindoctors are smart

 

[pax]

I have to say I (mostly) agree with Bush. Terror, abstractly, will pretty much always be a factor in geopolitical conflict. It's already been around for a long time in many different forms, and it will continue to be with us. We can develop new tactics and try to fight what we can, but a war on terror is, by definition, unwinnable. It's very much like the war on drugs.

To quote Dennis Miller: "Even if we could conceivably ban every single mind-altering drug and absolutely stop them from getting into people's hands, folks would spin around in circles on their front lawns until they fell down and saw God."

 

[ThatGuy]

Actually I think that having a war against an idea is a brilliant political idea. Unlike the old-fashioned wars, where you can determine progress by how much land you've occupied, how many ships you've sunk, etc, a war on an idea can make whatever progress you'd like it to.

If you need to win an election, you can claim you're winnng it. If you need funding, you can say you're not doing so well and need more money. Who's to say otherwise? It's genius.

Nineteen-Eighty-Four came 20 years late.

 

[pax]

It's not 1984 we have to worry about so much as Brave New World.

 

[ThatGuy]

Sure, that too

 

[pax]

ThatGuy, did you ever read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman? I think you'd enjoy it. My younger sister gave it to me and I thought it was a really powerful read.

 

[ThatGuy]

I have not read it but it looks very interesting. I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[STING2]

I couldn't agree more!

Military, Inteligence and Foreign Policy have to play together to solve the problem.
Hypocracy in foreign politics simply feeds the terrorists because they can show potential followers that the other side is a "big satan" who dosn't act like he talks. (Example: supporting "good terrorists" to destabilize a country you disslike)

Intelligence is neccessary to prevent us from daily terrorist attacks, military is necessary to defend us against an IMMINENT threat.



Japan wanted to become a "western" country, Germany was allready a democracy before hitler (Weimarer Republik) (I'm sorry, i don't know much about the history of South Korea)

I think there are situations where a Military strike is necessary but i think military strikes against terrorism are overrated because you can't win against terrorists when you are bombing their bases. They are not structured like our military, it's like bombing a single country to destroy the internet - it simply wouldn't work.

It's no big deal if they call themself "Al-Quaida", "Islambuli-Brigades" or whatever, they don't need one big mastermind behind that. They don't need huge training camps, if they want to they could simply send their people as volunteers to the US army for some years to get the basic training they need.
These men are "powered by hate" and if we don't care about the sources of their hate, we are doomed.
Of course we can't make every single person happy in this world but we can stop the majority of people to support the extremists.

The US military and coalition forces are absolutely necessary in the war on terrorism. Without them, Afghanistan will still be a huge base for terrorist. Intelligence agence would have been easily defeated by Al Quada and the Taliban if that is all we had sent to Afghanistan.

The Military is absolutely necessary in the war on terrorism regardless of the tactics or training of the terrorist. Most of the terrorist that have been captured or killed in this war have been captured or killed by the military.

Japan wanted to fight to the last man for their dictator. It was not a country that was on the verge of democracy at the start of the World War II. It was a very different culture and the United States enforced a change. The constitution Japan uses today was written by the United States.