How does the West win the 'War on ******'?

[Member2019]

By the by:
What does Iraq have to do with the "War on <insert abstract concept here>" ?
cheers,

It doesn't. I'm the first one to point that out. It's a major distraction. It was for Clinton as well. But unlike W., Clinton didn't commit us to it. I'm the first one to point that out too.

Unless they bring back the draft (which will cause all sorts of other issues), we can't have a War on ****** while trying to enforce every ceasefire in the past 20 years. We don't have the men and the committment.

 

[Elpajeroloco]

seriously, the US cant win the "war against ******" because their allies are the main countries that promote the Wahabism, instead the "axis of evil" are actually integrated with countries that have a more moderated position, for example iraq have turned in a no declared war between saudi arabia/jordan and iran, hope iran wins, that would be good for all us, but of course if that happen that are bad news to the bussiness of oil

an invasion of Iran would be perfect to the "terrorist", is clear that the "war agisnt the bla,bla.." isnt more than a search of oil

 

[alpha85]

wihtout delving into too much detail :

1. the 'wes' should stop calling it the 'war on ******' - as it probably pisses the 'terrorists' off even more.

2. FOREIGN POLICY - drop this whole we dont negotiate with terrorists - how the fuck can you resolve somehting, if you just want them to adopt your fu*king ideologies...ignorant fucks.

3. stop labelling countries as 'axis of evil' - what the fu*k has 99.9 % of these population done for them to be labelled evil...now that is some fu*ked up ****.

4. stay out of OTHER peoples countries and stop telling other countries how to live their lives.....****, Geroge Bush calls this 'war' a war of civilians and that we neeed to change how these countries adopt 'our' values. Bush wants these countries to convert in to the west....how ignorant is it of the west countries that we look down upon the middle east. we too are adapted to our lifestyles of binge ********, lack of respect, sex in every hole (at the same time lol), hypocricy. we should not be telling any other country to share our values. that is some ignorant ****.

in summary, we should mind our own business, and probabably lead by example, not *****.

smithi

 

[Roughneck]

Again, people would rather wait until it Happens, or after the fact to do somehting...Look, Bush saw a threat...had he not acted and there WAS an ******...all these damn liberals would be saying "Bush knew about the threat..why wasnt anything done!" Its complete B.S.!!!

Oh yes. "Saddam Hussein could have launched in 45 minutes and ****** us all."

Bullshit! We didnt do a damn thing on 9/10/01 and look what happened. Again, people dont get it....THEY WANT TO **** US....THEY **** THE WESTERN WAY OF LIFE. If we do nothing, we are even more likely to have a nuke dropped on us. To sit and do nothing after all that has conspired already is blind ignorance.

1. A certain section of the muslim world hates us. If ALL of the muslim world hated us, we'd have a gargantuan problem on our hands as there are almost one BILLION muslims int he world today.

2. Stop beating that tired old ***** of "they **** the West, our way of life and our freedoms". They may dislike us and our ways - but they **** our meddlesome interference more.

3. All this baloney of "we face a new kind of threat" won't fly one bit with me. You can try it on your average college crowd - but I'm old enough to remember that the same kind of nonsense was fed to me to entice me to fight the communists. I remember Panama and Greneda. I vividly recall that once upon a time Osama and his buddies were our "allies". We use and ***** people as we see fit - yet deny our role in many of the global conflicts ... and I'm not talking JUST the United States here. France, the UK and Russia have equally dirty hands.

People in general never seem to grasp the principle of the "Law of unintended consequences".

4. We stood down and faced down the Soviets with their thousands of nuclear warheads aimed straight at us. Go sell someone else your scary rhetoric of "the sky is falling down on our heads".


We need to stop acting like arrogant, we-know-whats-best-for-the-world bullies. We've been consistenly ******* the stated purpose of the military for over a century now - it's disgusting.


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Democrats suck and so do Republicans.

You knew we agree on this....

But still...

- It is fair to say the civil rights movement was started by Abraham Lincoln, who was a....REPUBLICAN.

Uhhh Peter ...Abe Lincoln was the one who quashed the argument of 'States Rights' - something anti-thetical to the current Republican Party, don't you think

Three years after women won the right to vote (1919), the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was introduced in Congress by Senator Curtis and Representative Anthony, both Republicans

Again - I wouldn't compare a Republican of those times with Republicans of today.

For example - care to name a senator today who comes to mind who can compare to the lines of Sen. Robert Alphonso Taft? Barry Goldwater? The GOP of today is no different from the DNC - they are both Statist, spend-like ******* sailors. I may have pointed this out before but: the only difference is that the GOP wants to transfer money from the Welfare State to the Warfare State while the Democrats fatally misunderstand the meaning of the term "government OF the people".




My only real disagreement with your post

cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Unfortunately, as the North Koreans are always quick to point out, they didn't lose a war and agree to terms. North Korea defied Clinton's appeasement.

So this automatically makes NK less of a threat?

Agreed. At the same time, our involvement Vietnam was based on a shaky "incident." Iraq invading another country, lost a war, didn't live up to the terms of its surrender -- so the whole "pre-empt" BS is something that I really think isn't even applicable. Furthermore, there are national security interests in Iraqi resources -- unlike Vietnam.

So wait - you're claiming oil was/is a part of this war?

Our involvement in Vietnam was a given - even before we sent in "advisors", we paid almost 60% (or 80%. My old brain forgets the exact figure) of the French ****** budget involved in the Indo-China War. We were just "itching" for a trigger to get involved.

In fact, if it wasn't for that fact, we wouldn't have the British, Japanese or other countries with so much interest. In fact, it's the selfish reason why the French and Russians prevented much needed inspections in 1995, by blocking UN Security Council actions. The "lack" of an "unified front" on many matters isn't something the US is guilty of -- it's the whole fucking, selfish world well before us! We just take the blame.

I agree that we take the blame and frankly, I'm tired of my country eating crow from the same pissants who shook hands with us a few years ago.

And Israel as lost a war? How about North Korea? Or Iran?

Here's the difference from all other instances: Iraq LOST A WAR and AGREED TO TERMS IT NEVER ADHERED TO! Not so with Israel. Not so with North Korea. Not so with Iran. I don't know how many times I have to point that out!

Only North Korea matched Iraq in invading another soverign nation, but unlike Iraq, North Korea sued for peace in terms that were equal -- not near unconditional.

So your theory is that we should enforce 'resolutions" only against nations that have lost wars? Or have 'conditionally lost war'? Or have 'unconditionally surrendered'?

I still say that the resolution enforcement argument is a catch-all argument. It sounds silly when we say that "we went in to enforce UN resolutions" when the UN disagreed with us on the issue anyway. We went in because Saddam was an "imminent threat" - not really because "he hasn't obeyed regulations". And in anycase, ever since we got into the war, we've changed our "reason" so often, it's becoming a joke. First it was "imminent threat". Then it was "Saddam and Al-Q were butt buddies". Then it was "we will be greeted as liberators". Then it was "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here". Finally it's changed to "Freedom and Democracy for Iraqi people".




Why I think we went into Iraq?

1. Remove Saddam Hussein who was getting too big for his pants. He was on our list anyway.
2. Secure a "friendly government" in Iraq.
3. A friendly government in Iraq allows us to pull troops out of the Saudi Kingdom - a major sore point for muslim fanatics.
4. Troops in Iraq mean we can keep a closer eye on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Naturally, friendly Iraq is a favourable outcome for Israel - as the largest most powerful and modern Arab army has been "neutralised".
5. Iraq has significant POL reserves and lucretive contracts would ensure our strategic supply stability for some years to come.
6. Bonus: Large country to help abse operations into the troubled caucasus regions of old enemy Russia.


How will I be proven wrong?
If the US doesn't end up constructing military bases in Iraq - despite claiming to "pull out" (and given our history over the past 60 odd years, I very much doubt that). Eventually, Iraqi troops will take over security etc. for the country - but the country will still host a sizeable American *****. Iraq will become our next Germany and Japan.


The simple fact is that the US government has supported (and continues to support) various dictatorial regimes around the world - all int he name of "fighting ******". Apparently it's only "terrorism" if it affects the American people. The US government claims it's fighting to preserve freedom and liberty - and yet insists on curtailing the same at home as part of it's efforts.

I'm simply not stating that the US government is the "be all and end all of all good and ill in this world". To think "everything is your fault, you must also be all powerful"... and contrary to the opinion of others, I certainly don't think the US is 'all powerful'. I'm highly critical of my government - but I loathe anyone who is quick to pounce and say "it's all the US' fault".

I'm sad about the path my nation is treading. I truly and strongly believe that we don't need military conquest to persuade people. 10 years of trade with China achieved what 50 years of belligerence could not. Today we share billions of dollars worth of trade with Vietnam and that nation is slowly opening it's doors.

One of America's largest exports may be weaponry - but I believe our most over looked export is our culture. Hollywood and McDonald's maybe the butt of jokes - but their pervasive presence and influence cannot be denied.



cheers,


PS: I wanted to delete my previous response to "guy". I didn't read your post below - if I had, I might not have bothered responding to him. Quite pointless reasoning with that chap really. :crash:

 

[Roughneck]

Unless they bring back the draft (which will cause all sorts of other issues), we can't have a War on ****** while trying to enforce every ceasefire in the past 20 years. We don't have the men and the committment.

Have you seen the wonderful state of our finances?

Poeple keep telling me "well, 4% inflation isn't all that bad".

Really? The dollar has lost over 88% of it's value in my lifetime! A dollar from my youth is worth less than 12 cents today! How did it get to this astonishing figure? What do you get when you compound 4% over 50 odd years? Think that's bad? Look at it this way - you're a 30 year old. Assume the same "inflation rate" - what do you think will be the value of the dollar when you retire?

Inflation was never this bad untill the Gold Standard was eliminated in 1933 - allowing the government to print money at will.

Forget the draft or commitment - we as a nation can ill afford the country we have right now, much less daly and fight wars!

cheers,

 

[Baal]

I'm Baaaaaaack

The initial question posed here - how does the west win the war on ****** is a little convoluted to say the least - terrorism is a methodology, not a region or concise entity - to end the ****** - the west will have to lose out in other ways that it is not willing to entertain...

 

[Member2019]

So true ...

to end the ****** - the west will have to lose out in other ways that it is not willing to entertain...

So true. That's why it doesn't matter what anybody in the White House or Downing Street does, it ain't ending.

 

[Werewolf]

The West can't win it with military *****, that's for sure...
The causes for Terrorism need to be wiped out - poverty and religious fanatism. But I'm sure that is impossible, so there always will be terrorism...

 

[MaxwellMurder]

There's a huuuge fundamental problem with this question... as well as a problem with the entire rhetoric of the "War on ******."

Terrorism is not an ideal or an ethos, it's a tactic. How do you wage war on a tactic?

The War on ****** is unwinnable, because, in the words of one of my late professors, "We don't even know who we're fighting."

 

[jumbo_jim]

The war on ****** is impossible to win because different people have different beliefs on who the terrorists are.

If the West are the terrorists they win by removing all ****** and stopping there fighting.

If the West are not the terrorists then they can't win because only the terrorists can stop the 'war on ******'.

 

[Member2019]

The war on ****** is impossible to win because different people have different beliefs on who the terrorists are. If the West are the terrorists they win by removing all ****** and stopping there fighting. If the West are not the terrorists then they can't win because only the terrorists can stop the 'war on ******'.

So true. But the reality is that the US was under constant ****** during the Clinton administration -- most of the incidents proven to be direct or indirect Al Quieda planned events by 1998 by the Clinton administration's own assessments.

Just because W. finally put his foot down, stopped asking and started telling "you're either with us or against us" has little to do with the fact that they continue. They will continue regardless. Yes, the US has sparked a lot of hatred. Yes, the US is engaged in a war in Iraq that is a distraction.

But the reality is that no state will knowingly harbor terrorists at this time. That wasn't true under the Clinton administration or even W.'s ******'s for that matter. I question W.'s tactic and think he could still do a lot more "asking" than "telling." But most Americans are very pissed off, and aren't taking "no" for an answer.

Because it doesn't matter what we do, the attacks won't stop.

Which begs the question, when does the US finally fall back to a draft and end its all-volunteer military policy? It's going to happen because regardless of Iraq, this war is not going to end anytime soon. The battles are going to be fought regardless of whether we engage with military or talk. You don't negotiate with terrorists because you honestly can't.

Bin Laden has proven that time and time again. His terms are unacceptable to any nation -- not just the US, not just its allies, but any country.

 

[Member2019]

Terrorism is not an ideal or an ethos, it's a tactic. How do you wage war on a tactic? The War on ****** is unwinnable, because, in the words of one of my late professors, "We don't even know who we're fighting."

So you wait until their tactic attacks civilians? I don't agree with many things in this "war," but going after states that sponsor terrorism (like Afganistan) and ******* those who used to choose between joining or fighting you is where you start.

There might not be a defined "enemy," but there are still "battles". And there were many "battles" under the Clinton administration too. 1998 -- that's when the "War on ******" began as a policy, but the Clinton administration. But the first "major battle" was actually 1993.

BTW, professors tend to be idealists. Although some are very brilliant, sometimes they are also very academic for a reason. In fact, think about why that term is used.

Also, you can also be a great leader of people but not a great statesman for a country. Ghandi was a great leader of people but his policies would have absolutely destroyed if implemented as policy on a national-level.

As many of us Americans say (in many ways), we don't practice capitalism with our neighbor, and it sucks as a national policy. But you can't make the nation personally accountable to you like you can your neighbor, which is why capitalism works best.

 

[Member2019]

Answered ...

wihtout delving into too much detail : 1. the 'wes' should stop calling it the 'war on ******' - as it probably pisses the 'terrorists' off even more.

It's a prolonged war on terrorism. That's the fact. The US has lost many, many battles. We'll lose more to come.

2. FOREIGN POLICY - drop this whole we dont negotiate with terrorists - how the fuck can you resolve somehting, if you just want them to adopt your fu*king ideologies...ignorant fucks.

We merely want their ideology to stop attacking civilians. It's one thing to ****** American military targets. It's another to ****** civilians.

3. stop labelling countries as 'axis of evil' - what the fu*k has 99.9 % of these population done for them to be labelled evil...now that is some fu*ked up ****.

Actually, I 100% agree with the "Axis of Evil" Speech! It was about damn time.
A. We appeased North Korea and where did that get us? The only thing they haven't done is lose a war, they fought to a stalemate.
B. Iraq invaded another country, got their ass kicked back and lost a war, and then agreed to terms they never, ever lived up to.
C. Iran's regime has been one of the largest state-sponsors of terrorism, short of Afganistan, since the '80s (when Lybia was, by far, the worst).

4. stay out of OTHER peoples countries and stop telling other countries how to live their lives.....

This is a shift back to American WWII attitude. If you can't control your nation and you sponsor hatred against other nations, and that causes harm to the US or its allies, we will solve the problem. Time and time again, understanding, diversity and democracy has been the key to tolerance.

I don't agree with "exporting Democracy," but God knows that it has done the deed in many nations. If you can control your nation and you don't sponsor hatred, the US -- and its allies -- does NOT have a problem with you! I think people forget that.

****, Geroge Bush calls this 'war' a war of civilians and that we neeed to change how these countries adopt 'our' values. Bush wants these countries to convert in to the west....how ignorant is it of the west countries that we look down upon the middle east. we too are adapted to our lifestyles of binge ********,

Huh? Talk about "ignorant." From over 10 million Islamic-Americans to Americans like myself who never *****, we aren't saying they should engage in ********. We also respect the right of nations to declare Islam the official religion. But we will not tolerate state-sponsored hatred to the point US and its allies are attacked.

lack of respect, sex in every hole (at the same time lol), hypocricy. we should not be telling any other country to share our values. that is some ignorant ****.

Freedom is what we are selling. If people choose to be irresponsible, that's their ***** of freedom. Maybe you can say that because you're irresponsible, but for SUCCESSFUL AMERICANS LIKE MYSELF, WE ARE ACTUALLY REPONSIBLE!

I tire of people on this board with the attitude that "I don't have something, but those who do 'didn't earn it.'" That's socialist bullshit. I was not born with any silver spoon in my mouth and God knows my wife was not. If you aren't responsible with ********, sex, etc... then maybe that's part of YOUR PROBLEM. America has always and will continue to be a nation of successful people because they are tolerant and responsible with their freedoms.

in summary, we should mind our own business, and probabably lead by example, not *****.

The problem is that the US is a prime example, and people have always hated us for it. People forget why the US is a nation of successful people. They keep blaming it off on various things. Yes, those things are factors.

But American is built upon opportunity taken by hard working, original thinking people. People who use their freedom responsibly.

 

[Member2019]

Gore: The environmental hypocrite

I thought Gore was Gandhi, it's a shame most Americans don't put the environment very high on their priority list.

You obviously don't know the first thing about Gore. Most environmental agencies call him the "environmental hypocrite." It's why he lost Tennessee, his home state, because he grants exceptions for his business interests and those who paid for a lot of his campaigns. And most people, including myself, would roll his eyes when he acused W. of what he himself was guilty for.

It's easy to bitch about the environment. It's far more difficult to come up with real solutions. But then again, I'm just an electrical engineer with a background and agenda to build a clean power infrastructure -- which is required before we try to tackle zero emission vehicles with fuel cells or electricity. Engineers are not respected in the US anymore -- not since the '80s. We're looked down upon as destroying the world, not making it better. No wonder our education in math and science has gone to ****, and you're made fun of if you're any good at it.

As I always say ... Fission: An Inconvienent Solution

But I always love it when non-engineers try to "educate me" on solar power and fuel cells.

 

[the.bigswede]

Whout having read this entire tread.....

I state simply, 2 boobs for every ak-47 the insurgents turn in....and that should do the trick....70 virgins on earth takes away the need to **** oneself to get them in heaven...

Just kidding,,,,really, the war can not be won, but bush wont withdraw. That shows failure. He will let the next president be the one to quit.

 

[Baal]

However indigestible it may seem, we have a responsibility to combat our own facetious behavior. We cannot combat the use of convenient myths and skewed facts in the Muslim world, only our own. We are anything but assured that we are saying the same thing as the other side about the same issues. Yet we act as though there was one common prism which we all look through to make our deductions. We won't say that radical Muslims and radical Evangelicals see eye to eye but their behavior is nearly identical.



We can't criticize Islam unless our own house is in order. False truths lead to false hopes, and false hopes lead to disappointment and despair. The "desperation divide" is a symptom, not the actual problem. Whatever we might think about the false truths of Tehran, Damascus, Ramallah and even Cairo - our words our meaningless because we haven't leapt out of our own vicious cycle of distortion. In order to do so, we need rid ourselves of convenient myths and skewed facts and then convince the Islamic world to do the same. It is our own biases and desires that cause us to accept over-simplified explanations of events, people, culture, religion and ideology in the Islamic world and we do so for a variety of reasons. We need to stop playing games

 

[Member2019]

So few criticize Islam ...

We can't criticize Islam unless our own house is in order.

So few Americans criticize Islam. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe it has everything to do with ******* Islam to justify actions.

Most Americans also realize the difference is that our state does not tell us to **** those of Arab decent, those of Islamic faith, those of a difference of viewpoint. I cannot say the same for many Arab states.

Yes, the west has been guilty of many atrocities in the past, and of using the Middle East as a basin of natural resources in the past century. I don't deny that. But that has little to do with Islam today, but how states raise their people into believing what they want.

And how they ***** a religion to do so.

 

[ÆGEAN]

this isn't a war on ******...it is just a quagmire of flash points where everyone is on high alert...

damn terrorists...dont they realise that we want to be left alone so we can simply fly to holiday spots and see our friends and catch trains and live normal lives in peace?