Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iceman
Scandium...what country are you from? In your profile you list no information. Just curious. I always try to understand where people come from on there point of view. I find it very intresting that many people who enjoy alot of freedom tend to forget at what price it comes at.
Maybe Skybird can enlighten this topic on the guy who came up with the Art of War theory...I have read some of it in the past and war and conquering seems very simple...mafias generally have it down as well too...Subduing your enimes,crushing there will, killing all out if neccessary. All these traits is where America falls short in it's "Conquests". Trying to sustain a war like we are doing in Iraq and Afghan...always trying to be the stand up guy and not taking advantage of the spoils of war is folly on the part of the conquerer.
Maybe it is a good thing after all not being so absolute.But the question I think was brought up in this thread..If America does not stand up who will?....we all know the answer...no one.So should America sit back and do nothing...no she should ACT and consult no one but her own people and those who would seek to live in peace.
A city divided against itself cannot stand....Peace out Scandium.
|
Canada... one of these days I'll get around to filling out more of my profile.
As to Sun Tzu: I've only ever read parts of the Art of War and, though its timeless and as relevant then as it is now, the advent of capitalism has meant some necessary modifications to the way imperial powers operate (modern forms of government and technology have played a part too).
I don't think the US should "sit back and do nothing" but that implies a false dichotomy; ie, that there are only two choices: the way its done things so far or nothing at all. Of course there are alternatives and always have been. You only need to look back and the choices made so far and consider alternatives to see this. For instance, consider the so-called "War on Terror":
What do terrorism and warfare have in common? Both rely on violence and fear to achieve their objectives (you win a war by destroying, through violence, your enemies will to fight, by making him fear the consequences of prolonging the conflict - for instance, a third a-bomb on Japan in WWII). In fact terrorism is little more than assymetrical warfare by non-nation participants. This is the problem with a "war on terror" though, how do you sap the will of participants, who are not defined by national boundaries, through violence and the fear that refusal to surrender will lead to more violence? Who signs the surrender? Isn't fear, through violence, exactly the goal of terrorism? Wouldn't it therefore make sense that a "War on Terror" cannot be won and is actually a paradox?
To me it follows logically that if the War on Terror is based on a paradox and cannot be won, then the actions taken to date in fighting in it are not reducing Terrorism. Rather, I believe the US's actions to date are worsening the problem.
This is not to say that you can't fight terrorism. I believe you can, but I think you do that by combatting the ideologies that promote it, by changing the living conditions in the places where it breeds, and by training and funding skilled counter-terrorist professionals. Then you capture, try, convict and imprison the perpetrators rather than detain them indefinitely in secret.
Sure the US is at least claiming to be fighting terrorism, I just believe that its doing about as poorly a job of it as its possible to do. It has been very successful at creating new backwaters for it to thrive in though.