A US political discussion....

[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...

[XabbaRus]

Well I see little of substance here beyond what I have heard on talk radio.

Oh I'm not a US citizen.

Yes your domestic policies make sense and are similar to what I have heard sitting round a pub table. But are they practicle and workable.

You can sound very convincing, as can the guy on talk radio who says the same things, but it won't get people to agree with you. They'll nod their heads agree, but go home thinking, "in a perfect world yes..."

Also to me your whole tone comes over as condescending and patronising to people who agree with you and those who don't. Kind of like a salesmen who has asked a question to an audience and someone has come back with the right answer, paraphrasing what the salesman has been talking about.

Your last statements about bombing and justifying shows me you are in cloud cuckoo land.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

My purpose isnt to hurt innocents - its to destroy the myth that Allah is blessing the Jihad and extremists movements. By striking at their holiest places, by showing that their "god" is not "with them" - you demonstrate that he has removed his watch from those that have - as many "moderate" muslims state - perverted his religion.

now this is a revealing comment. I wouldn't say this once you're on the campaign trail

[August]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

I wouldn't say this once your on the campaign trail

No foolin'! He just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

No foolin'! He just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Indeed.

There's something to be said for people who let stubborness trump reason...

[XabbaRus]

I have a couple of JCBs if you need help...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I have a couple of JCBs if you need help...

I had to Google JCB to figure out what the hell you were talking about...

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

now this is a revealing comment. I wouldn't say this once you're on the campaign trail

I understand the point CaptainHaplo is trying to make. If it came to hitting Mecca I suspect terrible things will have already come against us already. But the threat from Islam is real. They will keep coming at you and the more you sit thinking if you don't do anything they will eventually live in peace with me you are dead wrong. You are weak in their eyes and they will hit again and again until they have conquered. As I said before Islam is a peaceful religion. BUT there can be no peace until all (meaning you) have submitted to Islam.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Aramike]

I just have to quickly point out a glaring flaw, because explaining to you the specifics of why your policy is dangerous is getting a bit tedious:

The statement has been made that this is a war that cannot be won. Well -if you can't ever win a war, your doomed to either go down fighting it anyway, or being forced to surrender. Because in war there is always a winner and a loser. The comment that we cannot win it- means we are forced in some way to lose it. That is a position I cannot ever agree with. I love my country too much to throw up my hands and give her up like that. That attitude is the definition of defeatism.

What you CLEARLY don't understand is the concept of the War on Terror. That fact that you cannot grasp that there are no battle lines and no specific parameters for victory makes you wholly unfit to lead.

The War on Terror is going to have to be fought continously and diligently - and just because that's something we must do, doesn't mean that we will somehow lose the war as you imply.

Dude, this IS NOT WORLD WAR II.

Oh, and in wars, there are NOT always winners and losers, as you've said. Many wars throughout history have been fought to statemates.

But, again, the War on Terror is not a "war" in the traditional sense. The fact that you don't get that is disconcerting.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - just accept that we see this differently.

I am fully aware that this is not a war in the conventional sense. As I pointed out - there are no armored columns to attack, no well defined "front line". To say I don't "get it" when I have pointed out the same thing - and agreed with you on that point, is to try to discredit me with untruths. I would have hoped any debate could have at least dealt with facts and views, versus attempts to discredit with falsehoods. I have to say, I see a rather leftist approach - if you can't convince your opponent to accept your point of view - you discredit him by lying about him.

I also have to laugh - because you do this - while calling my views "stalinist". Seems to be a bit of irony there.

Now - I will thank you for one thing though. You clarified an important point - and that is that you see no clearly defined parameters for Victory. No wonder you say the war cannot be won - because you wouldn't recognize victory even if you had it. Now do not take that personally - it is not meant that way. But in your view, its obvious that victory is unreachable because it cannot exist. This is where we have our biggest disagreement. I CAN define what victory in the war on terror is very simply. Allow me to do so.

Victory against terror requires the following two conditions are met:

#1 Those that would use violence against innocent civilians to force any group to conform to their will under the batter of religious dogma are no longer able to find succor and support or haven by any nation or group.

#2 Those that would commit such atrocities under the guise of religious ferver are shunned instead of allowed to hide and multiply. Where their acts of hatred are held to the light, and they cannot cowardly hide from the repercussions of their own actions.

With these two conditions met, terrorism as we know it today - and by that I am speaking purely of the violent physical kind (though there other types), would pretty much cease to exist.

Now - let me be clear - I am not naive enough to think my policy would wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. You will always have some wacko out there. But the idea here is to make the world - and yes that includes those "moderate" muslims - realize that continuing to allow these elements to exist - hiding among the everyday people - comes at too high of a cost.

George Bush tried it one way - by offering some level of hope to people with the thought that they would reject extremism. That attempt has been, at best, marginally effective. He believed that people - given a taste of freedom - would not allow it to be taken. Some have held strong with a willingness to fight for their freedom. Others have given in to the fear of retribution by extremists. All in all - not an overwhelming success. Plus, speaking on what is best for the US - we should not be in the business of "nation building" or giving the citizenry of another nation jobs and hope when so many here lack the same. Ultimately, his thought was to give them something they could not abide to lose to extremism - that something being freedom.

Sun Tzu once offered a pearl of wisdom regarding war. It is not always in the striking of the enemy that one wins, but it striking that which the enemy cannot lose that brings them to surrender.

By refusing to see the enemy as Islam in its current incarnation - bent on a worldwide theocracy - you cannot fight your enemy with any hope of success. By seeing the enemy - we can see what they cannot lose - and that is the foundations of their beliefs. Can we try other measures - of course - I have advocated that - but if it ever is a push comes to shove situation - I will make a target out of that which my enemy cannot lose. By doing so I can force them to take a different path of action. One that forces them to police their own so that they do not lose what they hold closest to their heart.

Take what your enemy cannot lose, and you will have the path to victory.

And you cannot honestly think that the majority of "moderate" muslims in the world would sit quietly by while the extremists among them perform more acts of terror - when they know that those acts will cause retaliation that they - the moderates - will lose so much from. They would not. Now - the question is - where would they fall? Sure - the first time they will be against us - but when you hold hostage 3 other holy sites that they cannot defend - they will be forced to act to stop those whose acts would cause retaliation. Will they be happy about it? No of course not. So they are pissed. I can stand being disliked if we are safe. Beats the other option of being alternatively tolerated and blown up.

[Aramike]

Aramike - just accept that we see this differently.

We all seem to see it differently from you.

I am fully aware that this is not a war in the conventional sense. As I pointed out - there are no armored columns to attack, no well defined "front line". To say I don't "get it" when I have pointed out the same thing - and agreed with you on that point, is to try to discredit me with untruths.

What were the untruths, exactly?

What I explicitely stated was that you don't get it as you keep trying to draw parallels with WWII.

How is that an untruth, exactly?

I would have hoped any debate could have at least dealt with facts and views, versus attempts to discredit with falsehoods. I have to say, I see a rather leftist approach - if you can't convince your opponent to accept your point of view - you discredit him by lying about him.

Getting a little desperate, there? I responded, POINT BY POINT, specifically to what you said (a favor your certainly haven't returned).

Now you're whining about "lies"? No lies, here. Did you happen to notice how unpopular your position on the War on Terror is? Why you'd think anyone would need to lie in order to debate it is beyond me.

You don't have to accept my point of view. Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

also have to laugh - because you do this - while calling my views "stalinist". Seems to be a bit of irony there.

That isn't even remotely ironic. I suggest you look the word up.

I'm not trying to shut you up - I'm merely refutting your points. Obviously that is disturbing to you, and you'd prefer I'd shut up, but oh well.

Now - I will thank you for one thing though. You clarified an important point - and that is that you see no clearly defined parameters for Victory. No wonder you say the war cannot be won - because you wouldn't recognize victory even if you had it.

Garbage rhertoric.

The nature of the War on Terror is that it cannot be won.

Victory against terror requires the following two conditions are met:

#1 Those that would use violence against innocent civilians to force any group to conform to their will under the batter of religious dogma are no longer able to find succor and support or haven by any nation or group.

Impossible to attain. Terrorism can breed in basements as well as open encampments. It is completely impossible to prevent terrorism from merely adapting to those circumstances.

#2 Those that would commit such atrocities under the guise of religious ferver are shunned instead of allowed to hide and multiply. Where their acts of hatred are held to the light, and they cannot cowardly hide from the repercussions of their own actions.

You can't be serious. "...acts of hatred are held to the light..."?

I know you keep repeating this fantasy of simply informing the world and having them fall into line, but their acts of hatred are already well-illuminated, thank you.

Oh, and the very nature of "hiding" has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do so.

With these two conditions met, terrorism as we know it today - and by that I am speaking purely of the violent physical kind (though there other types), would pretty much cease to exist.

And what precedence do you base that conclusion upon? Me thinks its pretty pie-in-the-sky.

Now - let me be clear - I am not naive enough to think my policy would wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. You will always have some wacko out there. But the idea here is to make the world - and yes that includes those "moderate" muslims - realize that continuing to allow these elements to exist - hiding among the everyday people - comes at too high of a cost.

You have not researched the Muslim world at all, have you? They believe that the Masjid al-Haram, the most sacred place in the Muslim world which is located in Mecca, has been destroyed and rebuilt again and again. If someone were to be so stupid to destroy it in response to extremist terrorist elements, you'd ally the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD in OPEN WAR against us. They call that "jihad".

Good job, Mr. President. The terrorists win. That's their whole damned goal.

I'm not going to go over the rest of your justifications because there is no need. Everyone here seems to get it (conservatives and liberals) - except you.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mikhayl - it was offered from a US perspective - and sorry - but one cannot say the people of Iraq had any type of freedom prior to the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. I didn't say he was right - I simply noted what his stated thoughts on the whole process has been.

As for his dancing with "the most backward' Islamic regime there is - your either talking Iran or Pakistan. Since he hasn't done much dancing with Iran - I assume your speaking of Pakistan. The fact is regarding them - no matter who is president they will have to deal with the fact that Pakistan has nukes and that makes dealing with them (and India as well for that matter) rather delicate. Though to call Pakistan more backward than Iran - is to show a lack of knowledge.

Though by all means - blast Bush - but as I said at the outset - don't use the failings of a government run by someone else to somehow intimate that I agreed with that policy. At no time have I stated that I do. But again - its easier for some to try and discredit with fallacy than it is to make your own points.

Finally - for those who want to blast me - how many of you have been to most of the countries in the Middle East? I have. I have been in many of them. To claim I lack an understanding when I have l spent time there, is also untrue. There is a difference between disagreeing with YOUR view and a lack of understanding. No one here - myself included - can claim to "know it all" - and to try and disparage another view as "lacking knowledge or understanding" simply because you disagree is rather immature.
Its easy to type "you don't know squat" - why not throw out specific points that demonstrate your superior knowledge or understanding? Why not offer up idease? Again - its easier to tear down than it is to offer up constructive thought of your own. Well, maybe when someone gives you all the "perfect" answer you will throw it out here - apparently thinking and speaking your own views seems to be to much "work".

And people wonder why nothing gets better... sheesh.