[Aramike]

Okay, Haplo - I'm going to give you a point-by-point breakdown of your response and I hope any rebuttal you make will be in kind. Here goes:

No Aramike - a person can take a strong stand against terrorism and have a totally different idea than my own. I don't have a lock on all the good ideas. I understand kind of where UnderSea is coming from - I just disagree with him on the long term repercussions - while he is looking at it from the perspective (I think - and I could be wrong) - that if we leave em totally be they will just spend their time killing each other - I think that ultimately we would end up facing a united extremist front were we to follow his plan.

That's odd you say that because you said that I advocate half-measures although I haven't put forth any recommendations - this thread is supposed to be about YOUR ideas, not mine. I just gave detailed, specific reasons your plan would NOT work.

As for where I think you want half measures - allow me to point out that you have spent much of your posts talking about how my policy would make us lose international standing. Yet your own post in this thread - post 45 to be exact - you state "I personally couldn't care less about international opinion as long as we have the moral high ground." as well as "To do so would make us no better than our enemies ... in fact, maybe even worse.".

And how are those two statements mutually exclusive???

When I say I don't really care about international opinion of us, I mean exactly that. When I speak of the "moral highground", I'm referring to OUR OWN opinions of OURSELVES.

When it comes to international standing, what nations FEEL isn't all that important. What IS important is whether or not those feelings will impact their dealings with us. Judging by the last 8 years, clearly it's nothing more than populace-rhetoric. The destruction of a foreign city, BASED UPON RELIGION ALONE, would no doubt exhert political pressure upon world governments and citizens to take more direct action AGAINST us.

Yet, I could live with that - IF we were MORALLY right. Your plan is nothing more than an attempt to fight limited terrorist elements with terrorism on a national level. It is shortsighted, not well thought out, and based upon assumption after assumption.

Well - in war your going to do things that others would normally consider as morally reprehensible. The prosecution of a war is not done in half measures. Either your willing to get your hands dirty, or your not going to clean up the mess.

The key here isn't about what OTHERS think. It's about what WE think.

You keep taking positions as though the War on Terror is like World War II. Well, you're wrong. It isn't. There are no defined boundaries. I completely understand and accept the concept of collateral damage. But what you're proposing is NOT collatoral damage - it is intentional.

Even if you DID manage to subjugate the general Arab population, what makes you believe that would have any effect upon the EXTREMISTS, who ALREADY have shown a propensity to not follow mainstream views? You said as much as that you believe terrorists would have no quarter among the general population, as you believe that population would turn them in under your pressure. Do you honestly think terrorists are wearing t-shirts saying "I'm A Terrorist"?

The VAST majority of terrorists are spending as much - if not more - time hiding from their own governments as they are hiding from us. You start bombing religious cities as a response to an extreme minority, all of a sudden the general population and their GOVERNMENTS finds themselves in the situation as the terrorists.

Congrats, Mr. President - you just made the entire middle east a unified terrorist nation. Good work.

Hmm, now terrorists have REAL money behind them. Iran is directly supporting them. Russia is indirectly supporting them - perhaps with nuclear weapons for sale under the auspices of protection for the nations YOU started a war with. You think anyone other than us would care about that? Nope.

You just put the US in a morally indefensible position.

Thanks.

To feign indignance over what the "world attitude" would be - then say you really dont care as long as "our side" maintains the "high moral ground.", shows that deep down you just want the problem to be gone in a nice and tidy way.

See? This is yet another assumption along the lines that it is either your way or a half-measure.

I believe we can wage an effective War on Terror without sacrificing our moral justification for doing so.

But that isn't even the entire problem with your proposal. The fact is, what you want to happen would MAKE THINGS WORSE.

I mean, you even said that it would take "no more than 3" cities destroyed to make the Muslim world come around. What, exactly, do you base this estimate on? Wishful thinking? Just guessing? Hoping?

Populations have been inflamed much worse than that on a per-capita basis and have not surrendered. You keep mentioning World War II ... remember the USSR? Did they give in after three cities were destroyed? How many MILLIONS did they sacrifice against a war of aggression - WITHOUT a religious motivation?

And why in the HELL do you think the Muslim world would be any different, especially after you've intentionally incited them?

Sorry - but our enemy isn't so easily disposed of.

You said it. Our enemy is NOT so easily disposed of.

Yet, Mr. President, you are proposing an easy "solution". It's not hard for our military to level cities.

If this were a conventional war - it would be a different question. Its not. You can't take out the bad guys without risking some innocents.

You're not talking about "risking some innocents". You're talking about TARGETTING innocents. That's what we all see as morally repugnant.

That's terrorism, buddy.

Regarding world opinion and the "moral high ground" - since when has the world as a collective group been on morally firm footing? I didn't see world outrage over moral issues such as human rights abuse in the middle east (Still dont unless you mean the "abuse" of us being there and freeing people from a sadist). You have yet to define the "moral high ground" other than its not taking the war to the enemy and only doing the things the world apparently agrees with. If thats your weather vane, then you don't want to see this war through. You want to sit idly by, watching things like the Taliban blow up ancient Buddhist monuments with no outcry, on the hope that if you sit quietly they wont come knocking on your door next. Oh but thats right - the entire world didn't condemn it. Musta been morally high ground then.

I've already addressed this. It's not how the world feels about our actions. It's about how WE feel about them.

If you can hold your head up high, at the end of a day of destroying thousands of innocent lives intentionally, in order to achieve a political end, well - good for you, President Osama bin Laden.

But bad for America, and the world.

When your were invited to provide ideas/input - your reply was - and I am paraphrasing - "Your ideas suck and what I do in life does provides real input" - see post 43.

Why paraphrase and, as such, spin it? Why not just quote what I actually said?

Odd...

Well - if your input has been so blasted good - why the heck is this a problem today?

Erm, having input and making decisions are two distinctly different things.

However, what I wrote was in response to your implication that discussing these things with YOU would impact the government policy. Personally, judging by the way you've handled just this thread I question whether or not you'd be able to run a good campaign for mayor of a small town.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of your positions, mind you. But your position on this is terribly wrong. Furthermore, your entire justification of it is nothing more than philosophical ideologies and heavy assumptions.

That's certainly not presidential. I don't even think it's talk radio.

Instead of discussing your own views (and kudos to Undersea for his courage to discuss his) you would rather jabber world opinion, then flip to you don't really care for what the world thinks anyway. You want stand on "moral ground" when fighting a war means that normal moral codes must be weighed against each other - the moral code of "turn the other cheek" vs the moral code of "Fight to protect your loved ones". Because for some reason you continue to refuse to look at history - and if you turn the other cheek - they will use the opportunity to slice your throat.

Actually, I AM looking at history. Very specifically, actually. Not just broadly, as you like to do.

I mean, your "no more than 3" comment is historically based, how?

Next, you KEEP INSISTING that I am against fighting a WAR on terror. I'm not. Seriously, the only way you seem to be able to defend your views is by assigning ME the position you feel defaults against your own. That is specifically why I have NOT shared my position - I was seeing if you could justify YOUR position on its own merits.

You CLEARLY can't. That's why you seem to, again and again, suggest that not following your idea would be to advocate doing nothing.

In other words, you shouldn't need to know where I stand to be able to justify where you stand.

As for it being disgusting to you to bomb a city because it has civilians in it - and claiming that there is some vast difference between WW2 carpet bombing and taking out a "holy islamic city" - well - the fact is that these cities are often filled with people making a religious pilgrimage - and just so you feel better about it - I think its safe to say that at least a few of em that would perish would be of the extremist variety. There ya go - makes it a military target. Feel better now?

You can't be serious. A "few of em" is good enough for you to target?

In World War II (your favorite choice for an analogy, oddly), when the Allies carpet bombed Germany, there were SEVERAL reasons. One was to destroy industrial capacity. One was to break the will of the people of the NATION THEY WERE AT WAR WITH. NEITHERof those reasons are analogous with what you're proposing.

And, Mr. Historical Perspective, did the carpet bombing of England (the Battle of Britain) break the will of the people? Did the carpet bombing of Germany break their will?

Bombing alone has NEVER, EVER won a war. On your High Horse of historical perspective, you'd think you would know that, Mr. President.

Your own words say that the solution isn't easy. Why then are you proposing an easy "solution?"

Of course not - because in spite of your indignation and sputterings about "stalinist" policies, the fact is your responses to date pretty much show that unless its a guy in a turban with a gun shooting at you - you don't want him taken out.

Again, baseless assumption. Also completely wrong. It's odd how assumptions turn out that way, isn't it?

Well, terror will always find more poor saps to shoot at you - so you wont ever win the war with that. I guess the biggest difference Aramike - your "willing to OVERTLY fight" the war against terror - I am willing to WIN it.

Dude, you clearly don't get it - you CAN NOT WIN the War on Terror! It CAN be fought effectively, but it can't be won. The very nature of terrorism is such that it cannot be eradicated. A nation must be eternally vigilant against the threat (another item unlike WWII).

What, you think there's some Nation of Terrorists that will come to the table and sign an agreement to surrender?

But just to entertain the idea, what, EXACTLY, are your parameters for "victory"?

Next.

Your right - probably a bad thing for a leader to be willing to do isnt it?

No. Just a bad thing for an international leader to delude himself into thinking he can do.

If your ultra right wing - an end to the war means an end to the government-military complex being the end all be all - if your a bleeding heart liberal - beating up the terrorists might hurt their self esteem.

Again, your odd concept of an "end to the war" rears it's head.

So, you're saying that you'll find a way to end all violent extremism in the world (another way of saying terrorism)?

I find it odd enough that you believe (without basis) that it would take no more than the destruction of 3 Muslim cities to win the war.

Let's entertain this for a moment and assume that you commit genocide and end all Islamic terrorism ... did it occur to you that doing so would only pave the way for other types of terrorism?

I guess for the rest of us - and yes I speak for more than myself - its called the silent majority - we are simply sick of this and are ready to put an end to it - with overwhelming force if necessary.

Well, the one thing that can be said about your "majority" is that it is indeed silent ...

... even though it seems to be a result of it not existing...

However, I would hope that the diplomatic and economic pressures of the regional and world governments would affect change in a more peaceful way. But if not.....

If not, and if you're president, you should be able to design RESPONSIBLE, EFFECTIVE positions and plans. You, clearly, are either unwilling or unable to do so.

PS: I've noticed how you've tried to distance yourself from the idea of nuclear weapons. To that I ask, what's the difference if you use 1000 bombs to kill over 1.7 million people (the permanant population of Mecca, not including visitors), or 1 bomb?

I personally doubt your name will ever see a Presidential ballot. Thank God...