Steve Schacher Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 I must say that I'm pleased that even our newest members feel comfortable jumping right into the fray and mixing it up. The more diverse views there are, the better it is for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remo Williams Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: I must say that I'm pleased that even our newest members feel comfortable jumping right into the fray and mixing it up. The more diverse views there are, the better it is for all of us. True, it does make for some good reading if your into fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 If Jag's argument is that you should never negotiate with terrorists, and when they act so must we, I think that's a given. However, this line of thinking is short-sighted and does not address the problem. Do any of you actually believe beating them down is going to stop them? They thrive on oppression and violence and we are all to eager to feed them. My responses have been an attempt at perspective and the idea that there are more effective long term solutions to the problem. Since 9/11 the country has been whipped into a frenzy of irrational fear about the effect terrorism really has on our lives. I just find it difficult to get all wound up over terrorism when statistical facts show that it is a terribly insignificant threat to our survival. 42,000 people die each year in the US from automobile accidents. Over 60,000 people die each year in the US from medical mistakes. HIV claims 688,000 people worldwide each year 1.7 million people in the US are victims of homicide each year 24,000 people a day die from starvation, 3/4's of which are children. Where's the righteous indignation about those innocent deaths? Now for some perspective on Terrorism: Since 9/11 there have been 2,929 deaths attributed to terrorism. Of those 1,709 have occured in 2004 (hmmm..seems to be getting worse!) In 2003 625 killed, 3646 wounded. 1.5% were Americans. Terrorism is a bad thing, but hardly the mortal threat to our lives as some would have you believe. The outcry against it can't simply be due to the deaths of innocents, it must be something about the methodology. Otherwise I'd expect us to start a "War on Hunger". The fear that we will be overrun by Islamic radicals and lose our freedom is about as rational as fearing the bogeyman. Just be sure ya'll check under your beds at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 THey do indeed thrive on violence and oppression, which is why turning those countries where they operate into Democracies will destroy them at the start. The Bush doctrine is working, Afghanistan has over 10 MILLION registered voters, even with the Taliban terrorists trying to terrorize them to keep them from doing it, and Iraq is moving the same way, and soon, VERY soon, other countries are going to go the same way. If we can change their political leanings to majority rule, then the terrorists will be beaten before they begin. The fact of the matter is Grizzle, they are here, and they are in Iraq, the ones that are here, have been unable to strike because we have security locked up pretty tight, the borders are still a mess, but I have a feeling that once Bush is reelected, he is going to change that. He won't be trying to get reelected, so doing some unpopular things, such as closing the borders down tight, will be viable. Also, the ones in Iraq are dying, at a ratio of 300 of thiers, to 1 of ours, and those odds are MUCH better then when they get an opportunity to take out 350 for 30 of thiers. They are still attempting to attack us, and why hasn't there been an attack, because we have them hiding, and not giving them an opportunity to strike us. It's working Grizzle, and the problem is that you ONLY hear about the failures, NOT the successes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 quote:If Jag's argument is that you should never negotiate with terrorists, and when they act so must we, I think that's a given. However, this line of thinking is short-sighted and does not address the problem. Do any of you actually believe beating them down is going to stop them? They thrive on oppression and violence and we are all to eager to feed them.Actually, I do think it will stop them. Mostly, my reasoning is that a well-formed army against a militia of suicide bombers will always win given that the suicide bombers are armed with one-shot weapons. The well-formed army can always resupply. The suicide bomber cannot. Given enough suicide bombers, natural attrition will weaken their forces and siege warfare will ultimately win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalshion Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Have people convently forgotten the one thing that HASN'T happened in this country SINCE 9/11 and this war began? Lemme enlighten those who don't We havn't been attacked on our home soil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Jaguar, yes of course the spread of democracy will minimize terrorism. Do you think the method of spreading it will have an effect on whether it's successful or not? Where do we go next? When do we stop? At what point does it become imperialism? I'm a bit uncomfortable about the shifting rationale given for invading Iraq, we seem to have settled on the idea of spreading democracy, but that's not the way it started out. Steve, I've always respected the way you present your point of view even though I rarely agree with you. I think your point is fairly obvious, but since we all know that terrorism is an ideal, is it really possible to squash it? I'm afraid we'll always be fighting the battle but never win the war. Mr. Bush has said the same, and he was right. To me it's not much different than the "War on Drugs" and by that I mean inherently non-winnable (what is it about republicans and these nebulous, loosely defined 'Wars'?) Kal, We've all heard that one before, but it was 8 years between the first attack on the WTC and 9/11. Three years doesn't indicate much of anything. Though I'm sure our efforts since then have met with some success in preventing further attacks, we just aren't out of the woods yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 quote:Steve, I've always respected the way you present your point of view even though I rarely agree with you. Thank you. quote:I think your point is fairly obvious, but since we all know that terrorism is an ideal, is it really possible to squash it? I'm afraid we'll always be fighting the battle but never win the war. I think that utopia is the ideal. I doubt that the people killed by car bombs and suicide bombers are ideally dead. I know what you mean, though, about "terrorism" as opposed to terrorism. It's also like they say: the terrorist has to be lucky just once, we have to be lucky all the time. That doesn't mean that we give up trying to make it difficult for them to thrive. quote:To me it's not much different than the "War on Drugs" and by that I mean inherently non-winnable (what is it about republicans and these nebulous, loosely defined 'Wars'?)Let's not forget about the first one: LBJ's War on Poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Let's not forget about the first one: LBJ's War on Poverty. That was pretty silly too, but I do see some differences. Drug abuse is a choice an indivdual makes, becoming a terrorist is also a choice. I doubt many people choose to become poor (lets not get into the whole welfare argument.) So in my mind, being poor is more of a condition and one that can be addressed much more easily than the others. I've pretty much said all I have to say on the matter of terrorism. It's something that needs to be dealt with, and to Nomads point, it has to be dealt with on more than one front, not just militarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: I've pretty much said all I have to say on the matter of terrorism. It's something that needs to be dealt with, and to Nomads point, it has to be dealt with on more than one front, not just militarily. It is being dealt with on more then one front, militarily is just the most PUBLIC one. THere are so many fronts on this war that it is insane, and the US is dealing with it on ALL of them. I happen to think that the military one is the strongest and most reliable, and the most real time front. The rest are going to take longer, because they are the long term solutions. Military is the short term solution, destroy them quickly, then the rest of the "fronts" as you call them come into play. The war on terror is being dealt with on much more then just a military front, so what you guys are complaining about, I haven't a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted September 6, 2004 Report Share Posted September 6, 2004 quote:I happen to think that the military one is the strongest and most reliable, and the most real time front. The rest are going to take longer, because they are the long term solutions.Can you say "United Nations Resolution 1441?" Twelve years of negotions? Rush to war? Jag is right. Even President Bush said that there would be things that we hear about and things that we don't. Negotiations -- in this case the term would be Diplomacy -- take a very long time, even while people die in the process. Remember as far back as Theodore Roosevelt when he said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." What do you suppose he meant by that? We can speak all we want, but if we don't wave the stick, and then use it occasionally, what good is it as a backdrop to our speaking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2004 Report Share Posted September 6, 2004 I shudder to think what would happen with Kerry in control, if his thinking is at all like most of these guys, the military option, the short term solution is right out the window. Without the short term solution, to destroy them etc, then the long term solutions cannot and will not work, because without the big stick, the long term solutions are jokes. You have to have BOTH, and need to be willing to use the big stick in order to use the carrots, and get to the long term solutions without being destroyed first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2004 Report Share Posted September 6, 2004 The reason that Russia had to go back into Chechnya, is because they have a history of causing trouble and being warlike to thier neighbors. Russia went in to stop it. Russia does NOT need Chechnya oil, nor it's pipelines, it has more then enough oil all by it's lonesome, as well as the fact that US companies are helping build pipelines from the Siberian oil fields out to the Pacific for shipping around the world, including of course the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 Woohoo, oil pipelines..... The Chechens do NOT play well with others when givern their druthers, this is just a fact Nomad. There are always other reasons, but the main one being that the Chechens need to be under some sort of control, because they do NOT play well with others. Quit being such a condescending twit, you are an intellectual who seems to think that all the answers are somehow too complicated to put into a sentence or less. Well, they aren't, things are much SIMPLER then they appear, even if you like to complicate them. I hate Diplomats and their various shades of gray, they have their uses at times, but most problems can be placed in a right column and a left column. Things are not nearly as complicated as most people seem to think. A little military force goes a long way to knocking those problems on their head, and then after that can be dealt with. Just as we are doing now. Chechnya is dangerous, and if given independence, will create a security hole in that area that will create imbalance and problems for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: A little military force goes a long way to knocking those problems on their head, and then after that can be dealt with. Yup, just ask the Israeli's how effective military force has been in beating back the Palestinians. It's only been about 50 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: A little military force goes a long way to knocking those problems on their head, and then after that can be dealt with. Yup, just ask the Israeli's how effective military force has been in beating back the Palestinians. It's only been about 50 years or so. THe problem is that Israel has NOT used military force, they have maby pambied around with them. They attack Israel, Israel responds with a bomb, they attack again, Israel responds with a bomb. If Israel would go in there and actually clean house, take out Arrafat, and then bomb them to ruins, and then boot their butts back to Jordan where they originally came from, they wouldn't be having this problem. They have NOT used military force, they have played attack me, I attack you the same. BS, you attack me, I take you out, end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 Then perhaps they should ask all of the terrorists to stand and be counted, then slaughter them. It's pretty obvious that the palestinian terrorists are only goaded on by death and military force. How about the IRA? Surely Ireland can teach us something about dealing with terrorism using force. They have probably come closer than anyone to actually wiping it out, but they're still here 34 years later. Damn those terrorists are pesky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 BS, you take out those that support the terrorists as well NOT just the terrorists. If a nation is guarding and helping terrorists, then you punish the WHOLE nation. THe Palestinians like to protect terrorists, then you take a few of them out as well. Tell them, STRAIGHT up, if a terrorist comes from your country, YOU will suffer the consequences, NOT just the terrorist. That will put a stop to this nonsense in a hurry. You like terrorists, you protect terrorists, you support terrorists, then you will be treated as a terrorist. EVERYONE will suffer. NOT just the terrorist. NO, it's NOT fair, but life is not fair, and if you support terrorists, then you are a terrorist, and will be treated as such. If that policy were put into effect, there would not be terrorists, because no one would support them, because they would share the terrorists fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
street228 Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote: An individual who is congenitally unable to consider reality in all its inherent complexity due to malformed psychological defense mechanisms where a set of irrational opinions create a superset artificially reforcing a missing identity. This falls within the definitions of "Borderline personality" in basic psychiatric jargon. C) A guy who is more interested by contradicting than understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzle Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: BS, you take out those that support the terrorists as well NOT just the terrorists. If a nation is guarding and helping terrorists, then you punish the WHOLE nation. THe Palestinians like to protect terrorists, then you take a few of them out as well. Tell them, STRAIGHT up, if a terrorist comes from your country, YOU will suffer the consequences, NOT just the terrorist. That will put a stop to this nonsense in a hurry. You like terrorists, you protect terrorists, you support terrorists, then you will be treated as a terrorist. EVERYONE will suffer. NOT just the terrorist. NO, it's NOT fair, but life is not fair, and if you support terrorists, then you are a terrorist, and will be treated as such. If that policy were put into effect, there would not be terrorists, because no one would support them, because they would share the terrorists fate. Jag I understand what you are saying and just as you consider my points somewhat idealistic, your points are not viable in the real world either. You simply cannot paint everything with such broad strokes. Rather than deal with the few terrorists who are guilty of such acts you would turn an entire country against us by holding them accountable through the use of military retribution. That won't work. No country can have 100% control over it's citizens and their actions. Yes they should be held accountable but to what extent? Should everyone in Timothy McVeighs home state have been punished for his actions because they failed to stop him? Or should everyone in the US shoulder the responsibility? Should we round up his friends and relations and punish them as well, surely they could have prevented what he did. Fortunately we know better and only punished those in direct relation to his acts of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Originally posted by street: quote: An individual who is congenitally unable to consider reality in all its inherent complexity due to malformed psychological defense mechanisms where a set of irrational opinions create a superset artificially reforcing a missing identity. This falls within the definitions of "Borderline personality" in basic psychiatric jargon. C) A guy who is more interested by contradicting than understanding. If you have nothing to say, why don't you just keep your yap shut? Idiot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: No country can have 100% control over it's citizens and their actions. Yes they should be held accountable but to what extent? Should everyone in Timothy McVeighs home state have been punished for his actions because they failed to stop him? Or should everyone in the US shoulder the responsibility? Should we round up his friends and relations and punish them as well, surely they could have prevented what he did. Fortunately we know better and only punished those in direct relation to his acts of terrorism. [/QB]First off, the people of Timothy's Mcveighs state did not directly support his attack, they did not hide him, they did not get him the nitrogen, the truck, they did not hide munitions, they did not celebrate in the streets as the federal building blew up etc. The Palestinians have shown historically that they support terrorism, they hide them, they celebrate when a terrorist act occurs. EVERY Palestinian should be held accountable for those terrorists that they support. Short term, yes, they will be angry, short term, yes they will try and attack back, but when enough of them are killed and punished for the actions of the terrorists, then those terrorists will find that they have no place to hide, because the people will be TERRIFIED to support them, because when a terrorist attack occurs, that they supported, they get punished as well. This is basic psychology, when they support terrorists, they do not expect to get punished, because they are not held responsible for the terrorists, that they support, and their actions. Hold them responsible for those that they support, and pretty soon that support will end. THey will be too terrified to do anything that even comes close to supporting terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
street228 Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:If you have nothing to say, why don't you just keep your yap shut? Idiot.... EAT SH*T!! How 's that, Jag?. I hope this statement meets your immature requirements, for an exchange, in this thread!!... JERK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
street228 Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Funny how when it all goes down you don't see street or any of the liberals posting, just like that article said, when our soldiers kill a terrorist with a bomb and a gun they scream that you are killing a freedom fighter, but when a terrorist kills hundreds of civillians and children they are all quiet. Makes you wonder a lot of things.... So street, go ahead, what have you to say now? Maybe you can tell us again about your military career and if you were actually in the US army for the US army or in the US army making sure they don't harm any freedom fighters as you like calling them. You really want to know what I have to say?...Or do you want to hear a LIBERAL stance?. I can give you the former, but the lateral, is a little outside my expertise. Not ALL freedom fighters are terrorist. Not all terrorist are freedom fighters. And Not ALL tactics, we NOW refer to as TERRORISTIC, are isolated to third world countries, nor are they isolated outside the practice of the USA or RUSSIA. What happen to those children, had an obviious outcome, and predictable, from the start. NO surprise here! What is it that is said about an irresistable force, meeting an unmoveable object? I should hope you understand that analogy, but just in case...... My views, are NOT politically biased, nor can they be catagorized as LEFT or RIGHT wing. But, this I will say. YOU are the ENEMY of my country...AS IS BUSH and his followers. THESE are the REAL TERRORIST, as is the RUSSIAN equivilant. say what you will, YOU will NOT change my views or opinions, and to ATTACK me for them, only serves to show, the mentality, and the necessity for REMOVAL, of ALL TERRORISM AND THEIR SUPPORTERS!! good luck to you and your children, when the SH*T hits the fan. It is becoming very obvious...that day is coming. I will reply to things, I see fit. Your challenges, soback, are kind of useless. I only come to these forums, when I am in the office. I have MOST holidays off. Sooooooo..when You dont hear from me, I am enjoying the benefits, of a GOOD job, with GOOD benefits(eat your heart out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalshion Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 quote:Originally posted by street: quote:If you have nothing to say, why don't you just keep your yap shut? Idiot.... EAT SH*T!! How 's that, Jag?. I hope this statement meets your immature requirements, for an exchange, in this thread!!... JERK! The more you reply to Jaguar's post's with those type's of statements, the worse YOU'LL get. In other words, IGNORE JAGUAR. Is that TO hard? If so, then my friend you are to far gone to save Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now