The War on Terror

I'm going to try and consolidate my ideas on the war on terror here for anyone who is interested.

I find it appropriate to start with a little history. Back during the cold war we had 3 worlds... 1st world: capitalists, 2nd world: communists, 3rd world: independents. Things were simpler then... we just had to worry about the "reds". Even the 3rd world seemed to find this preferable to their current conditions.... seeing as if a 3rd world nation were invaded by a 1st or 2nd world nation for whatever reason (usually resources or strategic location) all they had to do was enlist the help of the opposing 1st or 2nd world nation. Ex. When russia invaded afghanistan radical islamists were more than happy to accept the help from the CIA to oppose the "heathens".

But now with Russia on the skids the US has essentially been free to arbitrarily fulfill it's will virtually unopposed. This is how terrorism came to primacy, no longer backed by heavy firepower, poor nations were forced to change tactics, to that of subterfuge, stealth and shadowy deception. We are no longer fighting an enemy of flesh and blood, we are fighting an ideology. As Randi Rhodes said "War on Terror? How can you declare war on an emotion?"

Swatting flys with elephant guns. Terrorism has no organisation, no leadership. It may have some figureheads but these are more iconic than functional. They draw inspiration from them. We are talking about independent cells, independent in every way except ideology.

If we succeed in uniting the world, it will be in uniting the world against us.

For every terrorist we overkill with a 500lbs bomb we create 10 more. We can blow them to bits but we would find those bits have all become more little terrorists. Like it says on the wall in the spy museum about how we defeated the great dragon russia and found ourselves in a jungle full of poisonous snakes.

The only way we can win the war on terror is if we give these poor and disenfranchised people (who are not so different from us fighting the war on terror in all reality) what they really want and need. True independence, freedom, stability and hope. Not rhetoric. I hear this crap so much in Bush's speeches they almost lose their meaning. What man is willing to wage war when he can have peace?

Muslims are an honorable people.... funny how not so long ago they were considered a lascivious people but now we are the lascivious ones. But if you cross them they will take you to hell with them. Their ideology is strong, their commitment unwavering, their passion is otherworldly. They can be our friends or our enemies forever.... which would you rather have?

Honestly though this is something like a bad zombie movie... you can unload several clips into them but they just keep coming and coming.... really all they want is to taste life... to survive. To live a decent and respectable existance like any other sane human being in the world. Bandaids, rhetoric and bombs are not cutting it. We need real solutions. We shall see how well an "independent iraq" functions on june 30th.... What do you all know about the bomb fragments with the sarin traces? I guess this is their WMD evidence. Even though someone could have pulled that shit out of their pocket. Anyways I will try to remain optimistic but I'm very, very skeptical obviously. We have made many enemies and lost many allies.... not to mention our horde of domestic problems. How this man has remained president is way beyond me.

Ok bye

Originally posted by villain

What do you all know about the bomb fragments with the sarin traces? I guess this is their WMD evidence. Even though someone could have pulled that shit out of their pocket.

what scott ritter thinks.

ah, speaking of ritter...

http://www.creepyclown.com/over50/dtatro/tatro138.gif'>

Always on point BROWNer....

Look at that... I make a thread about the war on terror and BROWNer magically appears! Now I just gotta figure out how to get !@#$% to talk to me again! :lol:

Hmm... we should have a thread on Chalabi too... He's been catching alot of heat lately.

very well written villain.

hits the nail on dead on the head !!

Originally posted by villain

The only way we can win the war on terror is if we give these poor and disenfranchised people (who are not so different from us fighting the war on terror in all reality) what they really want and need. True independence, freedom, stability and hope. Not rhetoric. I hear this crap so much in Bush's speeches they almost lose their meaning. What man is willing to wage war when he can have peace?

Muslims are an honorable people.... funny how not so long ago they were considered a lascivious people but now we are the lascivious ones. But if you cross them they will take you to hell with them. Their ideology is strong, their commitment unwavering, their passion is otherworldly. They can be our friends or our enemies forever.... which would you rather have?

How does one draw the line between what they demand, and what they really need? Do we even draw a line? Do the terrorists speak for the entire population? How do we give them what they need without setting a precedent of seeming as if we're acceeding to terrorist demands? Do we have any guarantee that once satisfied, the attacks will stop?

Good question El Mammero. As for what they want I think pure democracy is the only viable solution to that. Everyone should have equal say in a matter.

The greatest regulator of an insurgency force is a nations own civilian population. The civilian population is where an insurgency force draws all support from if the civilian population is not on the counter-insurgents side. The more support we have the less attacks we would receive, and if the trends continue eventually the attacks would stop altogether.

And it's not really like the terrorists are demanding 1 billion dollars and a helicoptor either.... these people are seen as freedom fighters, and a voice of the oppressed, and all that means that we have not won the hearts and minds of the people.

Originally posted by villain

Good question El Mammero. As for what they want I think pure democracy is the only viable solution to that. Everyone should have equal say in a matter.

Yes, I agree, but is that what they NEED, or what they WANT? Do you think these people want democracy? If not, should we let them be as they may, or should we persuade them to align their wants with what we believe they need?

Sorry for all this question format nonsense.

Well with a pure democracy they could vote themselves into becoming a theocracy if they so wish. Such is the beauty of "pure democracy" not to be confused with democracy. Personally I don't see anything wrong with them becoming a theocracy, as long as individual rights and freedoms and minority rights and freedoms are respected. The problem with most established powers is that the empire becomes top heavy and collapses upon itself. As long as pure democracy remains the basis with special protections of individual and minority freedoms there shouldn't be a problem.