Answer to question on a closed thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big Ruger

New member
Sorry it took so long, work hours you know. First I need to explain why I refused to answer before. I am frustrated by some people who, on reading something they disagree with, act as if the other member is some kind of uneducated, redneck, bigot. I don't believe I have ever posted anything that indicates I am any of the above. This is, in my opinion a big reason for the lack of civil discourse in our society today. I am fully aware that there are other members here who are far better educated than me. I also know for a fact there are some who are less. That could just be ego... but I doubt it.:D I simply have decided that I won't bother with folks who have nothing but insults to offer in return for simple direct questions, or civil debate. Now as to the question, "who are the same damn bunch"? No! Silicon, I was not referring to muslims. If we have learned anything from history it is that ALL reigions have been cited as justification for atrocities at some point in their history. I just wanted to make that clear. I was simply talking about people who use the tactics that have been used against us, and others in the world, that have been used. I also thought, wrongly I guess, that people would understand whithout providing examples of this behavior. I mean specificly, The Khobar towers, 1993 attack on the WTC, USS Cole, all the African embassies... etc, etc. I believe there have been many nationalities of people involved including white Americans, So no great revalations here, just pointing out that we have been at war with "those" people:p For quite some time, whether we aknowleged it or not. What? they have to actually knock on your door and say"we are here to kill YOU now" before we get it? This was my point I apologise if it was vague. I guess the simple answer is TERRORISTS:D
 
Ruger,
I understood who you meant. So, I guess that makes me an uneducated, bigot, redneck. I didn't know we had them in Michigan where I grew up. I guess maybe because I was who "they" were talking about:D
 
So then substituting "terrorists" in your original statement..

How many times do terrorists have to attack you bfore you get the idea they are declaring war on you? If we all agree that we will have to fight terrorists sooner or later, why not now? why not there?

My answer is that terrorists have (or rather had) virtually nothing to do with Iraq. The fact that we're there and the way in which we're conducting the war is doing more to help the terrorists than us.
Terrorism can be defeated, but not this way.
 
from my perspective I really don't like

the word terrorist. I think it is a political term... keep in mind that many groups have been considered terrorist including the founding fathers of this country.... Now Muslim extremist or such works for me....

I grew up an uneducated red neck, don't know if I still am or not. Doesn't matter. At best I'm a liberal gun carrying uneducated red neck. Every 'group' has a right to discourse.
 
Well you cant use the word muslim in the definition lest you be labeled a brainless redneck, and reminded that islam is a religion of peace. I can distill it down a little more, how about alqeida? or anybody associated with them?
 
Fine. Al Qaeda if you prefer.
Same question.

How many times does Al Qaeda have to attack you bfore you get the idea they are declaring war on you? If we all agree that we will have to fight Al Qaeda sooner or later, why not now? why not there?

My answer is that Al Qaeda has (or rather had) virtually nothing to do with Iraq. The fact that we're there and the way in which we're conducting the war is doing more to help Al Qaeda than us.
Al Qaeda can be defeated, but not this way.
 
Same way every other terrorist organization has been defeated: Alienate them from their base. Without a ready supply of recruits and support they wither and die on their own. Moreover, once the people actively turn against the terrorists they leave them exposed and give us intel.
Alternatively, if you prosecute the war in a clumsy and heavy-handed fashion and consistently anger the general populace it makes it more and more difficult to win. Everytime you fail to distinguish between the enemy and noncombatants you make the war less possible to win.
We've been ignoring that and painting ourselves to be a bigger threat than the bad guys. That's why we're losing.
The war against terrorism is a counter-insurgency war. Hearts and minds plays a larger role than bullets and beans because it's the general population that determines the victor, not guns.

Understand, I don't think the Dems have taken this lesson to heart either. Our choice is between 'cut and run' vs. 'more of the same'. There are a few people in Washington who understand the correct way to fight this war (all Republican BTW), but they're not in control of the policy.

[edit] edited to fix the bad-writing.... thingies[/edit]
 
Alienate them from their base. Without a ready supply of recruits and support they wither and die on their own. Moreover, once the people actively turn against the terrorists they leave them exposed and give us intel.
Click to expand...
Zakawi was turned in by the people.
Papers found afterwards show that there was a recruiting "crisis" due to American successes in Iraq
 
joab,
Exactly right. The more we follow the policies that bring such victories about the better we'll do. The *people* made that possible. They can also make it impossible.
 
And I would pose the same question to you here as on the other thread Slash, I KNOW that zarquawi was turned in by the people, I also Know that there are apparently some in his own org. who helped to dispatch him. So what is your evidence that what we are doing is helping alqeida and hurting us? We also know that Iraq and alqeida were not ignorant of each others existence prior to 9/11. We also know that zarqawi was in Iraq prior to our invasion. We also know that jemaa islamiyah was in Iraq prior to our invasion. We also know that saddam had a terrorist traing area at Salman pak prior to our invasion. We also know that saddam did in fact have a significant number of chem weapons on hand long after he said he destroyed them all. Degraded though they may be. It took 3 sarin shells to kill 5000 kurds so I dont much care for the idea of waiting and hoping that the terrorists and sadamm dont suddenly realize they should team up and kill some devils. ERIC
 
But how does that coincide with this statement.
Alternatively, if you prosecute the war in a clumsy and heavy-handed fashion and consistently anger the general populace it makes it more and more difficult to win. Everytime you fail to distinguish between the enemy and noncombatants you make the war less possible to win.
We've been ignoring that and painting ourselves to be a bigger threat than the bad guys. That's why we're losing.
Click to expand...

If the people are turning over the terrorists to us how then could we be consistently angering the populace and making it more difficult to win.

How can we be losing and at the same time causing the terrorist to decry a crisis in recruiting due to our victories?
 
Joab,
If the people are turning over the terrorists to us how then could we be consistently angering the populace and making it more difficult to win.
Click to expand...
They turned over *A* terrorist. Singular. And they were pretty angry at him for the bombings against Arabs. He's already been replaced, so if we're winning why haven't they handed him over yet?

AFA the leaders decrying a recruiting crisis, I don't know what you're referring to. I hope it's true. But if I was a terrorist leader I'd say the same thing whether it was true or not. But here's some stuff to back up what I'm saying:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165078,00.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1532303,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-31-war-terrorism_x.htm
 
GS-
You start out so well, by explaining the problem of "Cut and run" vs "More o' same". That's a reasonable objection to the current state of affairs.

But then, when Joab points out that the very prosecution you decry resulted in the end you demand (the people turned in Zarqawi), you state, "Well that's just one." Ummmmm, that "one" was Number 2.

You can't hope to make your point while dancing away from his obvious rebuttal. If you call success to be "all terrorists turned in", then provide a meaningful roadmap, rather than simply complaining about the fact that "Only No. 2" was turned in (while also complaining that we're not winning "enough" hearts and minds).

Personally, I don't like the fact that our brothers are getting killed over there. But, until I come to a point where I think I have a better paradigm for fighting these people, I'm sure not gonna be "tsk-tsk"-ing the current effort. Agreed?
Rich
 
Rich,
That 'one' got us absolutely nothing of practical value and I think you know that. It's not a matter of how many have been turned over. It's also not a matter of who it happened to be. Bagging the leadership doesn't net you much against this sort of organization.
The point is that the people were (expletive deleted) upset with him for what he did and that's why we got him. If they had not been upset with him we'd still be trying to find him. The lesson is that the people determine who wins.
Right now they like us even less than they like the terrorists. Except for...you know... Zarqaui, who they had a special reason to hate.
Does that sufficiently clear things up?

If you call success to be "all terrorists turned in", then provide a meaningful roadmap
Click to expand...
I'll keep that in mind if I ever define 'success' that way. I don't. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't like the fact that our brothers are getting killed over there. But, until I come to a point where I think I have a better paradigm for fighting these people, I'm sure not gonna be "tsk-tsk"-ing the current effort. Agreed?
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think I have a 'better paradigm'. Surprise; it's the same one that has defeated terrorism before. So I'll "tsk-tsk" all I want. The roadmap is above.
Speaking of which, just what is the roadmap for the current effort? Or is that something only I have to provide?
 
Same way every other terrorist organization has been defeated: Alienate them from their base
Click to expand...

Is that the "base" that passes out candy and dances in the streets when the WTC towers are destroyed with 3000+ people trapped inside?

What better way to alienate the "Terrorists" from their admirers... than to save a "whole bunch" of the "base" candy-dancing celebrators from yet another form of "terrorist" (Saddam) who dispossesses, rapes, and tortures and murders them... :rolleyes:

How about helping them free themselves from their corrupt religious leaders so they can join the rest of the free and "civilized" world?

How'ma doin'???
Check this out...

http://www.iwo.com/heroes.htm
 
The roadmap is above.
Click to expand...
Umm, no it's not. Only a generalized complaint, with even more generalized solution ("cut them off from their base" :rolleyes: ), was presented above. The debating tactic derives from a time-honored tradition...though, generally not from the debate's winning side. ;)
Carry on.
Rich
 
Okay, you want a "what I would do from here" plan.
Bearing in mind that I wouldn't have invaded in the first place and that I reserve the right to see your 'roadmap' if you 'tsk-tsk' mine, and finally that it's not gonna happen...

First off, the Iraqis offered a timetable for withdrawal today. You may not have heard the news yet. I would very publicly agree to it and make nice for the camera in the process.
Next, I would withdraw all coalition forces to the desert and leave the urban stuff to the Iraqis. The only time they see us is when the Iraqi government specifically (and publicly) requests our assistance.
American engineering units will continue (very publicly) to build infrastructure but that's about the only thing the Iraqi people will see of us.
In the meantime, we provide border security....
Border security for Iraq but not America hmph....
ANYWAY,
Next I get Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan together and work out a non-interference pact backed by the U.S. under the auspices of the U.N. I know that you don't like the U.N. but somebody's got to bring some legitemacy to this process and so far we ain't been doing it.
I'd also earmark some discretionary spending for Iraqi publicity campaigns to drive the point home.
Finally, we jump in with both feet and pool resources with the rest of the world to help with a joint antiterrorism global task force.

That's what *I'd* do. Sufficiently detailed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top