From what I read or heard (at this point I can’t remember what sources I get any info from, I just hope recollection doesn’t distort anything) the cruise missiles that hit the camps in Afghanistan didn’t necessarily do anything to stop terrorism against Western targets, but instead took out a bunch of Pakistanis training to fight in Kashmir. Now considering that both Pakistan and India were blowing up nuclear warheads in acts of saber rattling around that time, that “mis-hit” may have saved a lot more lives than can be imagined at this time. Should Kashmir have erupted into more than it turned out to be, Central Asia could be significantly less populated than it is today.
Do I think he tried to get a distraction from his personal problems? Well, all I can say is someone gave him a really good excuse, and the Sudanese chemical plant aside, the results are a hell of a lot better than critics would have had us believe at the time. The only problem is that you’re dealing with counterfactuals, so we can never be sure.
Elvis, does the cognitive dissonance in engaging in political grandstanding in order to condemn political grandstanding just not strike you? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you do come across to me as doing that which you claim to despise.
And EVERYONE, does the utter disrespect and callousness of using this tragedy for partisan sniping before the ashes have grown cold not embarrass you?
I have to respectfully disagree with you this time (a first, I believe). We have inadvertently put ourselves in this situation by continually waving the flag of a “civilized nation” and refusing to enforce consequences for terrorist actions in the past. We have set ourselves up as a doormat. They see us as weak and ineffectual, precisely because we do NOT respond properly when attacked.
Our response is to condemn, issue statements, etc, all the while patting ourselves on the collective back for how civilized we are; but from the other point of view, we have simply handed over our lunch money and cried, while the neighborhood bully eats a candy bar at our expense and laughs at us.
As I said (in agreement with the OP there) on this thread, we are not dealing with reasonable people. We are dealing with people who understand only violence, and can relate only to the most basic concepts: Fear, Pain, and Cause/Effect.
The only proper response is to hurt them even worse than they hurt us, and demonstrate that any attack on our people will be met with swift and fierce retribution to any and all involved. If we’re hit, we hit back twice as hard, and make them not want to fight with us, because the cost is too high.
Don’t misunderstand, I see where you’re coming from and respect your viewpoint. But I think the time for being nice and acting civilized with these types (terrorists) has come to an end. They have demonstrated time and again a willful disregard for human life and for our civility. We can’t keep doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome.
And if we do go to war, I do intend to volunteer (if they’ll have me. At 30, I don’t know if I can still enlist) for combat. I’ll even happily supply my own rifle, in compliance with Section I of the Militia Act of May 8, 1792.
Joe: we’re not in disagreement, just seeing different shades of gray. I’m all for finding the bastards who did this, who supported the operation (material and financial support), and any survivors of the original operation.
Once found, wherever they may be, we should kick them in the nuts so hard that their great-grandchildren are congenitally retarded, and unable to do anything more harmless than sit quietly in the corner and drool all over themselves.
However, that being said, the indiscriminate bombing of target populations suspected of harboring or supporting the perpetrators of this act in a hasty rush to judgement or desire for “justice” or “revenge” will not only be morally wrong, it will be, in the long run, counterproductive. It will only spawn another generation of terrorists.
AS far as Nations that support Terrorists: unless we totally eradicate their national infrastructure and reduce them to a stone-aged level of existence, and rebuild them in a more civilized image, we cannot avoid the very real possibility that a precipitous or injudicious response will only beget further violence.
I’m thinking in much the same manner that you are: an endgame of the elimination of terrorism as a political tool of extremists on this planet.
Let’s make sure we remember the basics of firearm safety as an analogy to the larger situation, regarding our response:
[list=1]
[li]Make Sure Of Your Target.[/li][li]Consider The Area Behind Your Target.[/li]Do Not Place Your Finger Upon The Trigger Until You Are ready To Fire.[/list=1]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ExTank * …the indiscriminate bombing of target populations suspected of harboring or supporting the perpetrators of this act in a hasty rush to judgement or desire for “justice” or “revenge” will not only be morally wrong, it will be, in the long run, counterproductive. It will only spawn another generation of terrorists.
This, obviously, is where it gets tricky. I’m not advocating indiscriminate bombing. I am, however, advocating full-scale warfare. The real trick though, is that we are fighting a new kind of war. One where the enemy doesn’t have the balls to meet you on a battlefield or wear a uniform. This enemy looks and acts like a civilian, so that he can hide among civilians. Sadly, this increases the likelihood that civilians will be killed in the action. But the alternative is to throw our hands up in the air and let them keep taking pot shots at us, because hey, we can’t kill civilians. You know as well as I do (better, in fact) that in war, people die. Civilians as well as noncombatants. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the way it is.
Funny you should mention that. Here’s the plan I’ve been preaching to anybody that will listen:
We and our little coalition (in my version, it’s only the U.S. and Israel) seek total conquest of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Then we (as you suggested) completely dismantle their government, dissolve their sovreignty and treat them solely as occupied territory, then parcel it up among the allies, the same way Germany was divided after WWII. The only difference is that Germany still had its own government and national borders.
To quote Attreyu quoting Orson Scott Card from the thread I linked above:
We aren’t fighting for revenge (though it’s a bonus). We’re fighting for survival and to ensure our way of life.
[quote]
**Let’s make sure we remember the basics of firearm safety as an analogy to the larger situation, regarding our response:
[list=1]
[li]Make Sure Of Your Target.[/li][li]Consider The Area Behind Your Target.[/li][li]Do Not Place Your Finger Upon The Trigger Until You Are ready To Fire.[/list=1] **[/li][/QUOTE]
You’re right about that, of course. I went a little overboard on the OP, but my cool head plan isn’t too far different.
Once you have fired do not stop firing until you have eliminated all parts of the origional target.
Like that game they have with BB guns in amusement parks, you have to shooot out all of the star in the middle, one little piece of red left and you dont get the prize…
Great analogy. At the fair if you leave a spot of red, you lose. If we leave any of them (the enemy’s troops) breathing, we lose.
And in the game at the fair, it’s not possible to take out all the red without hitting some of the white. It’s unfortunate, but it’s life.
Our enemy is fighting a total war, and we are trying not to. If that doesn’t change, we have already lost because he is more determined than we (collectively) are.
sheesh. I have so much more to say, but my typing hands are cramping. More tomorrow.
