THen why don't you spell out what the "root problem" is so it can be "contained and eliminated. Also have a plan ready for us to punish those that have already committed such acts, or do you call for appeasement with these folks?CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am going to ask my dad if he felt Safer before December 7th 1941.
Add your own examples.
a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.
c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.
A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.
This is my last word lowing: I will no longer be responding to your posts so there is no point addressing questions to me in your posts.lowing wrote:
THen why don't you spell out what the "root problem" is so it can be "contained and eliminated. Also have a plan ready for us to punish those that have already committed such acts, or do you call for appeasement with these folks?CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am going to ask my dad if he felt Safer before December 7th 1941.
Add your own examples.
a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.
c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.
A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.
Where is the liberal/socialist connection to Oxford? Oxford is considered one of the more conservative universities, unlike the university I went to, which was full of damn hippies.lowing wrote:
Oxford??!!...........Do I smell socialists/liberals who just might have a bias against Blair and Bush to begin with??Bertster7 wrote:
I have to say I agree pretty much with the report on the war on terror published by the Oxford Research Group today, a summary of which can be found here.BBC wrote:
The British and US policy towards Iraq has "spawned new terror in the region", a think tank report has said.
The countries had tried to "keep the lid on" problems by military force and had failed to address the root causes
That particular think tank have come to the conclusion that the current strategy is ineffective and that the causes of terrorism need to be addressed rather than just approaching the situation from a containment perspective
(which is what is happening now).
This is not the first report of its type, there have been many others from all sorts of sources.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-11 16:29:45)
i can throw in my 2 cents about that problem ultimately being poverty. and then that leads to the whole religious fundamentalist thing. poor peoples lives suck so instead of wanting to make changes now, they got these imams who tell them to not even worry about the now and look forward to the next. when all these imams are doing is selectively using the their religious beliefs in order to maintain control over the masses. and the only reason its been done like this is because thats how its been ever since the original bedouin tribes. you have your good guys and your bad guys. i happen to think the first bad guys used religion and thats how it got so strong. but it boils down to the fact that the middle east has never had any strong political culture, and as ive said before, nothing but strong men have ruled that land and if it wasnt them, it was the corrupt religious authority. but if they had more of a secular education i think that poverty will be less of a challengelowing wrote:
THen why don't you spell out what the "root problem" is so it can be "contained and eliminated. Also have a plan ready for us to punish those that have already committed such acts, or do you call for appeasement with these folks?CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am going to ask my dad if he felt Safer before December 7th 1941.
Add your own examples.
a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.
c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.
A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.
Why is that Cam? You HATE ME because I respond to your snide ass, smug, almost glad to see it happen, set backs or failures the US faces in Iraq?? I never called you a terrorist. Your posts smack of sympathy for them and glee at US stumblings. I refuse to apologize for that because it is the way you read. Stop being a pouty little kid, take a breath, and answer my post.................Or not.CameronPoe wrote:
This is my last word lowing: I will no longer be responding to your posts so there is no point addressing questions to me in your posts.lowing wrote:
THen why don't you spell out what the "root problem" is so it can be "contained and eliminated. Also have a plan ready for us to punish those that have already committed such acts, or do you call for appeasement with these folks?CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!
a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.
c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.
A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.
Muslims are trying to defend themself from the west....god damnit. Have anyone of you heared a single thing before the war in IRAQ?... I guess not. They don't want anyone controlling their contries.
That is why I asked, I had no idea what Oxford is like.Bertster7 wrote:
Where is the liberal/socialist connection to Oxford? Oxford is considered one of the more conservative universities, unlike the university I went to, which was full of damn hippies.lowing wrote:
Oxford??!!...........Do I smell socialists/liberals who just might have a bias against Blair and Bush to begin with??Bertster7 wrote:
I have to say I agree pretty much with the report on the war on terror published by the Oxford Research Group today, a summary of which can be found here.
That particular think tank have come to the conclusion that the current strategy is ineffective and that the causes of terrorism need to be addressed rather than just approaching the situation from a containment perspective
(which is what is happening now).
This is not the first report of its type, there have been many others from all sorts of sources.
I agree with this, but, why continue to bite the numerous hands that try and feed you??GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i can throw in my 2 cents about that problem ultimately being poverty. and then that leads to the whole religious fundamentalist thing. poor peoples lives suck so instead of wanting to make changes now, they got these imams who tell them to not even worry about the now and look forward to the next. when all these imams are doing is selectively using the their religious beliefs in order to maintain control over the masses. and the only reason its been done like this is because thats how its been ever since the original bedouin tribes. you have your good guys and your bad guys. i happen to think the first bad guys used religion and thats how it got so strong. but it boils down to the fact that the middle east has never had any strong political culture, and as ive said before, nothing but strong men have ruled that land and if it wasnt them, it was the corrupt religious authority. but if they had more of a secular education i think that poverty will be less of a challengelowing wrote:
THen why don't you spell out what the "root problem" is so it can be "contained and eliminated. Also have a plan ready for us to punish those that have already committed such acts, or do you call for appeasement with these folks?CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!
a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.
c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.
A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.
Also what do we do with the people that already committed acts of terrorism? How d owe "deal" with these people, without stirring the pot again, once it simmers down??
Last edited by lowing (2007-04-11 16:41:39)
I have to agree. Poverty is the root cause, exacerbated by religious extremism and a easily formed hatred of the west. It's easy to blame a nation that is occupying your country for all your problems, it's the way it's always been. In Baghdad, for example, many residents have no running water (that's efficient US reconstruction contractors at work for you) and a cholera epidemic is expected this summer (by the WHO) - living in conditions like that for years because of an invading and occupying force has gotta be a cause of much disgruntlement. Fixing these sorts of things should be an absolute top priority, not only because coalition forces are responsible for much, if not all, of the damage, but also because it would help to reduce the levels of animosity towards the occupying forces.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
i can throw in my 2 cents about that problem ultimately being poverty. and then that leads to the whole religious fundamentalist thing. poor peoples lives suck so instead of wanting to make changes now, they got these imams who tell them to not even worry about the now and look forward to the next. when all these imams are doing is selectively using the their religious beliefs in order to maintain control over the masses. and the only reason its been done like this is because thats how its been ever since the original bedouin tribes. you have your good guys and your bad guys. i happen to think the first bad guys used religion and thats how it got so strong. but it boils down to the fact that the middle east has never had any strong political culture, and as ive said before, nothing but strong men have ruled that land and if it wasnt them, it was the corrupt religious authority. but if they had more of a secular education i think that poverty will be less of a challengelowing wrote:
THen why don't you spell out what the "root problem" is so it can be "contained and eliminated. Also have a plan ready for us to punish those that have already committed such acts, or do you call for appeasement with these folks?CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!
a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.
b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.
c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.
A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.
Is this guy talking out his ass then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01076.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
About what in particular?Kmarion wrote:
Is this guy talking out his ass then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01076.html
my opinion it's u fight fire with fire and by that I mean throw away the rules of engagement and create squadrons of death to deal with them at thier level u canot fight them with conventional tactics. dont involve battalions or large amount of troops
It's like the Brits in the American Revolution in a sense. They kept to the same tactics and principles, and no matter how bad-ass, they lost.RECONDO67 wrote:
my opinion it's u fight fire with fire and by that I mean throw away the rules of engagement and create squadrons of death to deal with them at thier level u canot fight them with conventional tactics. dont involve battalions or large amount of troops
poverty its not the problem RELIGION GUYS THATS the root to all mankind problems
In a way no and in a way yes.
No; because many islamic extremists hate the west more than ever, now, and I live in a western country.
Yes; more security in place. Its a pain having to go through checks when getting on a plane but it'll help stop whackos. And, while I live in a western country, its small, gets on reasonably well with ME states and is in the middle of nowhere.
No; because many islamic extremists hate the west more than ever, now, and I live in a western country.
Yes; more security in place. Its a pain having to go through checks when getting on a plane but it'll help stop whackos. And, while I live in a western country, its small, gets on reasonably well with ME states and is in the middle of nowhere.
Seems that way. Although a lot of that article is not very positive about the US recontruction work.Kmarion wrote:
Is this guy talking out his ass then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01076.html
There was a cholera outbreak in 2003 in Basra, I saw reports earlier today that one is expected in Baghdad soon.Yet those inside the reconstruction effort say security concerns were hardly the only problem. Poor planning and coordination by U.S. officials meant that even successful individual projects failed to do the job; for example, health-care centers were built at great cost but had no water and sewer service. Poor work-site management by contractors meant that some projects went awry. And now that the United States is handing over reconstruction efforts to Iraq, many involved with the process worry that the Iraqis don't have the training or the money to keep U.S.-built facilities running.
..................................................................
"What reconstruction?" Othman said in an interview last week. "Today we are drinking untreated water from a plant built decades ago that was never maintained. The electricity only visits us two hours a day. And now we are going backwards. We cook on the firewood we gather from the forests because of the gas shortage."
Othman's view is shared by many across the country. In interviews last week, Iraqis expressed frustration not just with the United States but with Iraqi leaders, too, for pocketing aid money that was supposed to be for everyone.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22331756.htm
(that wasn't one of the reports I saw earlier, just one I found)
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-11 17:00:28)
guys Haiti its the poorest country in the western hemiphere and followed by most countries in latin america and u dont see them blowing themselves up cause they hate ur gut.
Islam teaches u to hate other religions and most of the west dont follow islam therefore making u an automatic enemy
Islam teaches u to hate other religions and most of the west dont follow islam therefore making u an automatic enemy
this is what i think about every day. those that take the lives of innocents and non combatants purposefully deserve no quarter or amnesty. but, i also believe a lot of the insurgency (i talk about iraq because obviously thats what i know the most about) honestly sees themselves as "freedom fighters". I would put my self in the shoes of the average dirt poor iraqi and I would probably be pissed. not necessarily hatred towards America but shit man, you could only be pro occupation so much after you lose one or two loved ones. every iraqi civilian that dies at the hands of terrorism is another family/group/circle of friends that was tied to that person and now a lost supporter of coalition forces. i could sympathize, seriously with a lot of hajis that are trying to kill us. and that is really hard for me to do given the fact that im sure a lot of those same hajis that I might reason with might also have been responsible for the deaths/murders of my friends in combat.lowing wrote:
I agree with this, but, why continue to bite the numerous hands that try and feed you??
Also what do we do with the people that already committed acts of terrorism? How d owe "deal" with these people, without stirring the pot again, once it simmers down??
so whats the solution? We cant kill every male aged 14-24 in that country just to be on the safe side. But we must define who the real enemy is. and the bullshit political process must take place. concessions will have to be made.
I believe that overall victory could be achieved in iraq. but not the way people expect. No matter how much i hate it, i see us winning the situation by having the Iraqis vote us out of there democratically. and if that happens the world will percieve it as an insurgent victory. fuck it. let the iraqis think they beat us, let them think they kicked us out. as long as it was a collected unified voice. was that not the point? I believe that will be the first step towards democracy in the middle.
An American victory in Iraq will be deemed as defeat by the rest of the world.
Back on topic:ELITE-UK wrote:
Because Muslims every religion are those lame ass motherfuckers with absolutely ridiculous beliefs and ideals.
As long as there is a hegemony (or religion), there will be terrorism.
This isn't positive?..lolBertster7 wrote:
Seems that way. Although a lot of that article is not very positive about the US recontruction work.Kmarion wrote:
Is this guy talking out his ass then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01076.html
I think just having contractors going in and rebuilding everything takes away from the pride the people of Iraq could gain. If someone else does it all you are less likely to respect it and more likely to destroy it.
some random Iraqi wrote:
Fuck Ahemd!! I spent all day working on that dry wall you prick
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There cant be victory on the war on terror when there are no set rules as to what its defined as victory.
Ill tell yall when we win
Very true. A good reason to use Iraqi contractors not US ones. Although from what I've heard, quite a few of the US contractors simply sub-contracted smaller Iraqi firms to do much of the reconstruction - for far less money than they were getting paid, of course.Kmarion wrote:
I think just having contractors going in and rebuilding everything takes away from the pride the people of Iraq could gain. If someone else does it all you are less likely to respect it and more likely to destroy it.
again, another good post:GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is what i think about every day. those that take the lives of innocents and non combatants purposefully deserve no quarter or amnesty. but, i also believe a lot of the insurgency (i talk about iraq because obviously thats what i know the most about) honestly sees themselves as "freedom fighters". I would put my self in the shoes of the average dirt poor iraqi and I would probably be pissed. not necessarily hatred towards America but shit man, you could only be pro occupation so much after you lose one or two loved ones. every iraqi civilian that dies at the hands of terrorism is another family/group/circle of friends that was tied to that person and now a lost supporter of coalition forces. i could sympathize, seriously with a lot of hajis that are trying to kill us. and that is really hard for me to do given the fact that im sure a lot of those same hajis that I might reason with might also have been responsible for the deaths/murders of my friends in combat.lowing wrote:
I agree with this, but, why continue to bite the numerous hands that try and feed you??
Also what do we do with the people that already committed acts of terrorism? How d owe "deal" with these people, without stirring the pot again, once it simmers down??
so whats the solution? We cant kill every male aged 14-24 in that country just to be on the safe side. But we must define who the real enemy is. and the bullshit political process must take place. concessions will have to be made.
I believe that overall victory could be achieved in iraq. but not the way people expect. No matter how much i hate it, i see us winning the situation by having the Iraqis vote us out of there democratically. and if that happens the world will percieve it as an insurgent victory. fuck it. let the iraqis think they beat us, let them think they kicked us out. as long as it was a collected unified voice. was that not the point? I believe that will be the first step towards democracy in the middle.
An American victory in Iraq will be deemed as defeat by the rest of the world.
Why is it the Iraqi's that loose family members to terrorism, blame the US for it, and NOT the terrorists?? Is it not painfully obvious to these people WHO are the ones building and who are the ones destroying??