Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be that all combat is as precise as taking a little needle and poking out holes in a sheet of paper. Pulling off the feats of precision warfare that you're talking about takes an enormous amount of time, planning, coordination of forces both within the country and with our allies elsewhere, diplomacy, and luck. War is a messy, clumsy way of getting things done, period. Yes, we've got all the tools and the strategies that things can be targetted with such precision that they're aimed at a single small group of people... but that doesn't mean that they're always going to work.
| |
LexyBitch wrote:
Yes, it worked before... and that's why we have no problems with Arab terrorists today. Oh, wait? What's that? We have huge problems with Arab terrorists? Read my below post on martyrs and heroes. A movement is made up of ideas. People are only placeholders. The way to end this terrorist threat is to get to the root of the ideas that prop it up. Think of bacteria. You treat a bacterial infection with antibiotics, and then stop taking the antibiotics. If you stop taking the medication too soon, the infection grows back. Terrorism requires a certain level of vigilance to keep down, and we've been ineffective at keeping that vigilance in the last decade. That's why it's become such a serious problem now. I never said we could wipe out all terrorism, for good. The important thing is that we stick to our principles and continue to combat terrorism when it pops up. WWI was not won. It was interrupted and later resumed. Um... how so? The Revolutionary War was not the end of British-U.S. hostilities. That only happened when attitudes changed. Part of the reason those attitudes changed was that the US military became a mighty force during the 19th century after our scrape with the British in 1812, and it grew stronger. Meanwhile British interests were spread all over the globe, and there was less reason for them to antagonize us, or vice-versa. I'm not saying you're wrong about the attitudes, though. The attitudes are a root of the problem. Still, sometimes you have to chop off the branches before you get get to the root. If we take out Bin Laden, we make his successors more powerful and numerous. Especially if we harm citizens in doing it. In Desert Storm, we were attacking buildings. Armoured columns. Large, obviously military targets, often in the middle of expanses of desert. How do we apply those weapons and those tactics to Bin Laden's terrorist network? Again, stop assuming we're going to harm a lot of civilians. This is not a matter of us rolling tanks into every village in Afghanistan or slaughtering Palestinians. You're correct that our targets in this case are not as easily identifiable as ordinary military installations. However, the heart and soul of the terrorist network is extremely visible. Terrorists broadcast hate propaganda, organize rallies, attempt to recruit new members by controlling their local media. Obviously an F-16 bombing a rally is out of the question, but taking out one of those TV towers isn't such a bad idea. Sending ground troops in to take over headquarters buildings will likely also be effective without spilling civilian blood--or by keeping as few as possible from harm. And you keep coming back to choking off supplies and capital. How do we do that, exactly? Once something is inside of Afghanistan, we have no control over it. The only way we can exert control at all is to stop things from reaching Afghanistan in the first place. That strategy, as I've pointed out, will starve the people but only make them more willing to give what little they have to the terrorists in order to make the Great Satan (a role the U.S. seems to relish without realizing) go away. Choking off supplies is different from dealing with supplies that have reached your destination; your logic is faulty. The point of cutting a supply line is to prevent new materials from coming in. I don't mean starving the people here; it's much more effective to find out who's shipping explosives and weapons and money to the terrorists in Afghanistan from outside, and go after them. That's what I mean by cutting off supplies. It's a strategy that has nothing to do with the civilian population; you simply follow the seed money and cut it off. As far as the Taliban's backpedaling... yes, I know they've denounced the actions as abominable, and I'm pleased in that. It's a reassuring shift in direction. At the same time, though, they've denied that it's even within Bin Laden's capabilities. They're saying he couldn't have done it. That's better than denying he would've done it... but it's not a total distancing. They're giving this careful consideration. You seem to think the U.S. is the only country that can be pushed too far... the Taliban is a theocracy, and I can assure you, they have more invested in appearing rigid and inflexible than we do. If we go in and demand Bin Laden while they're maintaining he's innocent (or at least, not guilty of this particular atrocity), we're going to be challenging the Taliban's sovereignity. They'll have no choice but to fight, and neither will their allies. I doubt the Taliban's allies are as impressive as our own, but let's not quibble over numbers. The Taliban's sovereignty needs challenging anyway, and we have more than enough legitimate reason to do so when they willingly harbor a known terrorist. If they want to say he couldn't have attacked the World Trade Center, they can, but he still hit the USS Cole and we still want his blood for it; we have better bargaining chips with which to demand it. The Taliban is also an oppressionist regime. Such governments would rather avoid getting backed into a corner by fighting because they need to maintain some control over their own populace. And which face would its allies want to present the world? "We encourage terrorism and people who hide terrorists" is one possible message, and the other is "You're the ones who are hiding him, so you're on your own." If in fact this united front is all that united, it's a united front in support of terrorism, and all the more to be fought because of it. But really, terrorists don't want to look like terrorists these days; Arafat talks of peace and ending violence, while in the other microphone he broadcasts appeals to potential kamikazes telling them that suicide bombing is a noble thing. They do this because if the world brought any real pressure to bear on them, terrorism would essentially collapse--and it could be held down more firmly this time. As Arafat and the IRA are proving right now, you can get away with a lot more terrorism during a "peace process" than by challenging an enemy that's willing to stand their ground. Lummox JR | |
AbyssDragon wrote:
Look as Kosovo. We had this term "collateral damage," to describe when we blew the %*$# out of something that wasn't military-related. The civilian deaths were incredibly high. I need not mention the Chinese Embassy... The lion's share of those civilian deaths weren't caused by the US military, you forget. As for the embassy, mistakes do happen. Since WWII (yes, it has 2 W's!) seems to be mentioned a lot in this thread, I'd like to point out Dresden. Check any history book: we levelled the entire city with fire-bombs. And we didn't need to, Germany was already in its death throes. Sometimes bad decisions are made. This happens. That doesn't mean that we weren't right to fight Germany or Japan at all in the first place, though. but history shows action works; it worked against Libya in 1986, and terrorism declined alarmingly. That's because terrorist activity involving the US was confined to plane hijackings and kidnappings overseass. Terrorist action on US soil was unknown then. Yet we still had a compelling interest to act. And when we did, the number of terrorist acts of that sort dropped. Yeah, we'll claim this sort of action has worked in the past. The US military has this image of itself as as holy crusader against terrorism, but in actuality that's a load of crap. Terrorism has never occured like it is has today. There's simply no precedent you can look back at and use say thats what we must do. Actually the 60s and 70s provide amazing precedents. Israel at that time was overrun by terrorism. How did they stop incessant plane hijackings? They had a couple of secret plainclothes officers on every plane with guns; after a few hijackers found out the hard way that this tactic was no longer effective, it stopped. Hostage-taking stopped in the 80s after it was rendered ineffective by taking the hard line. And Israel had generally fewer of these sorts of suicide bombings and other hostilities prior to the Oslo peace accords in '93, in which Arafat promised he'd move the PLO toward making peace--and in 8 years since, we see that he's not only taken no action to stop terrorism from within his ranks (which he's very capable of doing), but has actually encouraged it. Simply put, anyone who really understands terrorism and antiterrorism knows that it can be fought. Lummox JR | |
Raven01 wrote:
Botman wrote: I live near Los Alamos National Labs and White sands missle base..Making New Mexico a very likey target the news people here are going crazy.. | |
Don't get me wrong, I loathe the Taliban. I have no respect for their sovereignity. They are not the "rightful" rulers of their country, and even if they were, they are not good rulers, for their country or for the world. If Bin Laden goes free and the Taliban topple, I'll consider it a victory. Men like Bin Laden will always exist, but they need an environment in which they can thrive.
That said: yes, Afghanistan's allies are few and unimpressive. Those allies, however, have allies, and so forth. All they need is one cry of "Holy war!" and we could have the whole Arab world against us. Yes, we could "win." We probably would. Zealots, however, can do a lot of damage on the way down. The immediate effects are bad, but the greater repurcussions for global peace and stability are even more frightening. You're talking about solutions to problems that have no solutions, ends to problems that have never been ended in the past, only diverted. The tactics you talk about have never "worked." If there was a way to end terrorism, there wouldn't be any terrorism. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying we shouldn't have any illusions. You're still talking about theory when you say we could go in and get Bin Laden without civilian bloodshed. That ignores many things, not the least of which is who gets to decide what is or isn't a civilian and what is or isn't a terrorist. In Vietnam, we bombed villages because we believed they harbored VCs. One might argue that there were no civilian casualties there, because by harboring VCs, the villagers were complicit. Even if no one is hurt (highly unlikely), the impression is still this: U.S. terrorist forces (yes, our people look like terrorists to them. What would you call it if someone from another country breaks into one of your country's buildings, waving weapons?) storm a building, waving weapons around and making demands. So, they grab a few inhabitants of your country, and leave. Oh, my. If they can do that to Bin Laden, they could do it to anyone. What if they come back for you next time? The U.S. is at it again, overstepping their bonds. Let's throw some rocks and bottles. Let's chant some chants. The soldiers don't look so tough now. Now they look worried. Now one of them goes down. Isn't that something? Ha ha. The mighty soldier went down. Let's take his stuff! Look, one of us has his gun. Let's wave it around like a trophy! Oh no! The soldiers shot him! They can't do that! Throw more rocks! Get out our guns! Let's show the Great Satan they can't push us around! In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "And so it goes." | |
Leftley wrote:
Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be that all combat is as precise as taking a little needle and poking out holes in a sheet of paper. Pulling off the feats of precision warfare that you're talking about takes an enormous amount of time, planning, coordination of forces both within the country and with our allies elsewhere, diplomacy, and luck. I don't mean to imply that war is precise, but it's more precise than I think Lexy is giving it credit for. War is extremely costly, there's no doubt about it, and it's extremely imperfect, but when fought with honor it doesn't involve the kinds of massive civilian casualties Lexy implied. War is a messy, clumsy way of getting things done, period. Yes, we've got all the tools and the strategies that things can be targetted with such precision that they're aimed at a single small group of people... but that doesn't mean that they're always going to work. It's messy, but... clumsy? I don't know if it can be called clumsy, no more than politics anyway. But on top of being messy, it's also highly effective. It is not the ideal solution to all problems, or indeed to any, but there are times that it's the best solution to one problem. Our weapons and strategies may not always work, or hit their intended targets, but they're as targeted as they can be and for the most part they get things done. When we begin to hunt down these terrorists with force, there's going to be a lot of war-like messiness, cost, and even some failures. But in general it will be effective. And when you consider the alternatives--doing nothing, or wading through bureaucratic red tape--force is clearly the best option. Terrorists are dogs: They attack weak prey, and avoid anything big and mean enough to squash them. It doesn't take a lot of study to see that mentality in action among them, though it helps. Lummox JR | |
LexyBitch wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I loathe the Taliban. I have no respect for their sovereignity. They are not the "rightful" rulers of their country, and even if they were, they are not good rulers, for their country or for the world. If Bin Laden goes free and the Taliban topple, I'll consider it a victory. Men like Bin Laden will always exist, but they need an environment in which they can thrive. Which is kinda the point of holding those countries responsible. Can men like Bin Laden thrive if the world shows a stern face to terrorism? ...if it deals harshly with countries that support terrorism? That said: yes, Afghanistan's allies are few and unimpressive. Those allies, however, have allies, and so forth. All they need is one cry of "Holy war!" and we could have the whole Arab world against us. Yes, we could "win." We probably would. Zealots, however, can do a lot of damage on the way down. The immediate effects are bad, but the greater repurcussions for global peace and stability are even more frightening. In spite of the entrenchment of Jihad as a concept in Islam, Islam is on the whole a religion of peace. And most folks, no matter what religion, would prefer not to be involved in a conflict and just go about their normal lives. Not all of Iraq is as impassioned as its dictator, nor I'm sure does the average Afghan support terrorism. Like you said, zealots like Bin Laden will always exist. But their cries usually fall on deaf ears when the political climate is inhospitable to them. I've seen this in action myself, on a smaller scale, and it's convinced me all the more that the only way to deal with terrorism is to stand up to it. You're talking about solutions to problems that have no solutions, ends to problems that have never been ended in the past, only diverted. The tactics you talk about have never "worked." If there was a way to end terrorism, there wouldn't be any terrorism. But there is a way to curb it, reduce it, and lessen its impact, and this has certainly been done in the past. You could use the same argument to say we shouldn't have door locks because we can't stop a determined thief, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the bar, make thieving more difficult, and thus reduce the number of thefts even though we can't wipe out theft completely. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying we shouldn't have any illusions. And I don't. I think there will still be terrorism in the world, but we can cut it down considerably for a while. You're still talking about theory when you say we could go in and get Bin Laden without civilian bloodshed. That ignores many things, not the least of which is who gets to decide what is or isn't a civilian and what is or isn't a terrorist. In Vietnam, we bombed villages because we believed they harbored VCs. One might argue that there were no civilian casualties there, because by harboring VCs, the villagers were complicit. I don't actually suggest it's possible to avoid all civilian casualties. That kind of thing is inevitable when force is taken. I submit that the alternatives, however, are worse. Even if no one is hurt (highly unlikely), the impression is still this: U.S. terrorist forces (yes, our people look like terrorists to them. What would you call it if someone from another country breaks into one of your country's buildings, waving weapons?) storm a building, waving weapons around and making demands. Terrorism is entirely different from military action, though it might not appear that way to a few people in the thick of it. Military action is done at the behest of the state, by the regular military, generally avoids civilian casualties, and has specific objectives. Terrorists are individuals, not directly supported by the government, who are not regular military and who use violence against civilians to maintain an atmosphere of fear and control. So, they grab a few inhabitants of your country, and leave. Oh, my. If they can do that to Bin Laden, they could do it to anyone. What if they come back for you next time? The U.S. is at it again, overstepping their bonds. Destroying a terrorist organization is hardly outside of the US's bounds. Fighting threats abroad has occurred since our nation was founded. One of the first actions of the US Marine Corps, in the 18th century, was to destroy pirate activity in Libya. Osama Bin Laden's continued organization of terrorist attacks on US soil and US property is definitely a clear and present danger to our national security, and that gives us every right to act. That's a completely different matter from a country deciding to persecute somebody within another country's borders just because they just don't like his politics. Let's throw some rocks and bottles. Let's chant some chants. The soldiers don't look so tough now. Now they look worried. Now one of them goes down. Isn't that something? Ha ha. The mighty soldier went down. Let's take his stuff! Look, one of us has his gun. Let's wave it around like a trophy! Oh no! The soldiers shot him! They can't do that! Throw more rocks! Get out our guns! Let's show the Great Satan they can't push us around! People like Yassir Arafat are intentionally stirring people up, saying "Throw more rocks." When a protest turns violent, it loses its legitimacy; it should be just that simple. It's as clear as the difference between a legal assembly (under our Constitutional rights) and a riot. The people who make that assembly become a riot are held accountable. Escalating violence does not automatically make it the right choice to stop fighting back. After all, as per your example, there'd be no problem if the morons weren't throwing the rocks. And there are still those who realize that those who provoke an attack deserve all they get. It's not simple one side vs. the other, but a lot of miniature conflicts, each started by somebody, and the provocateur is always the one to blame. Lummox JR | |
When we begin to hunt down these terrorists with force, there's going to be a lot of war-like messiness, cost, and even some failures. But in general it will be effective. And when you consider the alternatives--doing nothing, or wading through bureaucratic red tape--force is clearly the best option. Terrorists are dogs: They attack weak prey, and avoid anything big and mean enough to squash them. It doesn't take a lot of study to see that mentality in action among them, though it helps. You're right. Terrorists are dogs. And despite the fact that they're thoroughly disgusting beasts, annoying pests at best, a lot of people still like them a lot and won't tolerate their abuse. | |
I just gottra say this, attacks against the US would have thought to be in the form of chemical warfare...or in nuclear bombings if anything. But instead it came in the form of some 747's. by the way, anyone ever noticed we are one of the very few places without military bases from other countrys here snooping on is and joining the fight then end up losing and saying we won even though we never accomplished the mission?
| |
In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654
| |
oh I gotta mention 1 more tihng, it was pretty awsome seeing it actually fall (the world trade center). Destruction is cruel yet at the same time art. who ever planned it is a genius, sheer genius! The person hit the exact buildings to make people afraid, the pentagon and world trade center, The world trade center was where people would meet from around the world and where allot of money was and the pentagon was the main defense/offense building! Brilliant. boy I hope school also stops and shuts down!
| |
Geo wrote:
oh I gotta mention 1 more tihng, it was pretty awsome seeing it actually fall (the world trade center). Destruction is cruel yet at the same time art. who ever planned it is a genius, sheer genius! The person hit the exact buildings to make people afraid, the pentagon and world trade center, The world trade center was where people would meet from around the world and where allot of money was and the pentagon was the main defense/offense building! Brilliant. boy I hope school also stops and shuts down! Well, think of the fact that people might be stuck where the building falls, or die from the ashes, or still be in the building. To me, makes it a little less "awesome" Alathon | |
of course it's not good knowing people died there, and that people die every day and leave their familys behind. thats why I say it is horrible and a art at same time, war is one of the very few things I've seen that brings humanity together.
| |
I'm a bit apprehensive to calling New York the "City of God". Any god.
Also, who are these two brothers you speak of? And in what way is Bush a "great leader"? -AbyssDragon | |
Geo wrote:
oh I gotta mention 1 more tihng, it was pretty awsome seeing it actually fall (the world trade center). Destruction is cruel yet at the same time art. who ever planned it is a genius, sheer genius! The person hit the exact buildings to make people afraid, the pentagon and world trade center, The world trade center was where people would meet from around the world and where allot of money was and the pentagon was the main defense/offense building! Brilliant. boy I hope school also stops and shuts down! UHH NOT EVEN ART, TO BE SAYING THIS IS AMAZING AND AWSOME, IS JUST AS BAD AS TE PEOPLE WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P EOPLE DIED, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AWSOME, BUT YOU WERE IN THE TOWER FALLING??????????????? | |
I heard about this durring my third hour today at school. It upset me that the principal announced it and asked for a moment of selence but nobody in my class shut their %#%^# mouths. Some people can people be so arrogant.
| |
WildBlood wrote:
In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654 And, um, can you explain the no doubt 500 other times that passage has been called on to say an event was predicted? Which was the real one, eh? | |
WWI was not won. It was interrupted and later resumed. The Revolutionary War was not the end of British-U.S. hostilities. That only happened when attitudes changed.
If we take out Bin Laden, we make his successors more powerful and numerous. Especially if we harm citizens in doing it. In Desert Storm, we were attacking buildings. Armoured columns. Large, obviously military targets, often in the middle of expanses of desert. How do we apply those weapons and those tactics to Bin Laden's terrorist network?
And you keep coming back to choking off supplies and capital. How do we do that, exactly? Once something is inside of Afghanistan, we have no control over it. The only way we can exert control at all is to stop things from reaching Afghanistan in the first place. That strategy, as I've pointed out, will starve the people but only make them more willing to give what little they have to the terrorists in order to make the Great Satan (a role the U.S. seems to relish without realizing) go away.
As far as the Taliban's backpedaling... yes, I know they've denounced the actions as abominable, and I'm pleased in that. It's a reassuring shift in direction. At the same time, though, they've denied that it's even within Bin Laden's capabilities. They're saying he couldn't have done it. That's better than denying he would've done it... but it's not a total distancing. They're giving this careful consideration. You seem to think the U.S. is the only country that can be pushed too far... the Taliban is a theocracy, and I can assure you, they have more invested in appearing rigid and inflexible than we do. If we go in and demand Bin Laden while they're maintaining he's innocent (or at least, not guilty of this particular atrocity), we're going to be challenging the Taliban's sovereignity. They'll have no choice but to fight, and neither will their allies.