A very politically incorrect idea [Archive]

101A

08-11-2006, 10:04 AM

We are at war with "Islamic Fascists" - and they are certainly at war with us.

We have a problem, however. They live without a national border, or an apparent military establishment for us to target and blow the crap out of.

We, on the other hand, are a large, open, relatively easy to hit target (seeing as though our population, and that of our allies are all considered viable targets for the enemy - regardless of age, gender, creed, etc....).

In previous wars (most of them, anyhow), it was easy to identify the enemy. He wore a specific uniform, and was a target. See enemy uniform, shoot enemy - see another uniform, etc... Our serviceman in WWII were not told to shoot at Nazis only after they shot first!

So the problem is, ultimately, identifying the enemy; we apparently can't do it; so the enemy has a decided advantage. They even go on TV - dance in the streets, burn flags, celebrate at every death of any American - they spew hate toward us at every opportunity, clerics preaching death to America and the West, within the borders of some of the countries they mean to wreak havoc upon! We are neutered by our own constitutions and traditions.

Well, I think we can identify many of the members of our enemy. They ARE the people who go on TV, in any country, and burn our flags. They ARE the islamic fascists, that is there calling card, there uniform if you will. If they spew the rhetoric of Islamafascism, they are Islamic-Fascists, and are fair game. If they go to a rally, and scream and holler and shoot their guns in the air, same thing; wherever they are, whenever they do it; if it is within the means of our military, we ought to engage EVERY SINGLE one of them, and do our best to eliminate them; just as we would in any other war. More special forces, fewer F-22's. Assassinations, black-ops; hell drop the 101st into the middle of a rally wherever and let 'er rip!

As was made perfectly clear yesterday with the reporting of the plan to bring down 10 commercial airliners. That plan was a hair's breadth away from succeeding - had the plan not been uncovered, the islamifascists would have succeeded. Defending against every single target in every single country they hate (schools, malls, ports, stadiums, etc, etc.....) is IMPOSSIBLE. In this case, a good offense might = a reasonable defense.

In both previous World Wars, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the enemy combatants had to be killed to seal the deal. This war is no different. Collateral damage was high, but was seen as necessary to achieve the objective. This enemy is every bit at least as committed to the destruction of all that we hold dear as Nazi Germany EVER was. A strong argument could be made, in fact, that this form of fascism is even more onerous than Hitler's.

I don't know the details of how this would work, I just know that I watch people who buy into the Islamifascist line on my TV damn near every night hollering "death to America", etc....without ANY fear for their own well-being. They aren't afraid of US doing anything. We cannot win this war until they are.

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 11:03 AM

We are neutered by our own constitutions and traditions.

Yeah, that pesky constitution. We should just scrap it, so that the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) can do whatever it takes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung) to militarily fight our enemies.

I mean this isn't really a war of ideas that will be won by having the best idea and making people's lives better. It will be won by killing, and doing that on a massive scale. I mean if we can kill enough people, their sons and daughters will see just how righteous our cause is and love us more.

:rolleyes

boutons_

08-11-2006, 11:23 AM

Crookshanks

08-11-2006, 11:37 AM

If we would've been more aggressive right after we took Baghdad, we probably could've crushed the insurgency before it got started.

I mean, look what happened in Fallujah - instead of wiping it out, we had to be politically correct and that action allowed El-Sadr and his henchmen to escape and they have regrouped and are doing far more damage than before.

boutons_

08-11-2006, 11:47 AM

"ore aggressive right after we took Baghdad,"

Details, please, General Crookshanks.

Are you talking about cloning the military 3 times up to Shinsheki levels so we would have had enough troops? Sorry, that wasn't politically acceptable to the WHIG.

Rummy is a fucking disaster.

Ozzman

08-11-2006, 11:54 AM

"This war is no different."

Typical failure of understanding by the right-wing radicals. In fact, mostly no attempt to understand at all. Just a bunch of half-baked, knee-jerk emotional issues. Like Viet Cong irregulars in VN, the war on terror is VERY different. I can't believe you people are so fucking stupid, over and over again.

"I don't know the details of how this would work"

ah, so you admit you really are stupid. Congrats. A tiny bit of progress.

Stupid? I think if you were to ask Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, she would definitely say I have a plan...

The thing is, You can't tell the enemy from the normal population over there, as you brilliantly compared it to the Vietnam war.

Did I tell you guys about how they are planting roadside bombs? They do via KIDS and young teenagers. They are a dirty group of Islamics. Not all Islamics are that way. as a matter of fact, there are many many good Muslim folk. We just need them to turn the insurgents in, but they are not willing to cooperate. That is our big problem over there; we have NO cooperation. very little if any. the only ones I can come up with is Pakistan. Afghans hate us for what we did to rid them of Al-Qaeda temporarily (because of course they will take over again when we leave), And Iraq hates us for the most part because we've plunged them into civil war. The Tactics could have been much better. But they aren't. Personally I think we are in the opening stages of WWIII

gtownspur

08-11-2006, 12:16 PM

Yeah, that pesky constitution. We should just scrap it, so that the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) can do whatever it takes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung) to militarily fight our enemies.

I mean this isn't really a war of ideas that will be won by having the best idea and making people's lives better. It will be won by killing, and doing that on a massive scale. I mean if we can kill enough people, their sons and daughters will see just how righteous our cause is and love us more.
:rolleyes

You honestly don't think that this war can be won on ideas alone do you?

I mean aren't you the same guy who says that the arab world is to barbaric to understand democracy.

Do us a favor, and reflect on yourself and see where the contradictions lie. Because i promise you, and i'm being sincere and not an asshole, that every post you put on seems to be done half wit.

You are a smart person, but you're methods of persuasion border on a NBAdan level.

See with you, i'm just trying to see where you come from with all this, but with dan, i know he's just a propagandist who doesn't believe his own crap and wishes to have his world instituted no matter what civil liberties have to be broken because he's that hypocritical and he believes that his ideology is superior to any principles.

Extra Stout

08-11-2006, 12:54 PM

I mean this isn't really a war of ideas that will be won by having the best idea and making people's lives better. It will be won by killing, and doing that on a massive scale. I mean if we can kill enough people, their sons and daughters will see just how righteous our cause is and love us more.

Fallacy alert.

Define "making people's lives better." You sure everyone in the world has the same view of what that is? You sure everyone in the world thinks the best way to do that is via peaceful means? You sure everyone in the world is committed to the spirit of compromise and what is best for the world as a whole, rather than just their family or their tribe or their nation?

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 01:03 PM

Fallacy alert.

Define "making people's lives better." You sure everyone in the world has the same view of what that is? You sure everyone in the world thinks the best way to do that is via peaceful means? You sure everyone in the world is committed to the spirit of compromise and what is best for the world as a whole, rather than just their family or their tribe or their nation?

I mean the war on terrorism will only be won by reducing political and economic instability.

The war on terrorism will be won by reducing poverty and oppression in the developing world.

This will take economic and political development, and a thorough re-shaping of our military.

Reference:
The Pentagon's New Map. (http://www.jackwalters.com/pentagonewmap.html) by P.M. Barnett

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 01:11 PM

You honestly don't think that this war can be won on ideas alone do you?

I mean aren't you the same guy who says that the arab world is to barbaric to understand democracy.

Ideas alone? No.

But remember, we aren't fighting people so much an idea.

So we go out and kill 100 Al Qaeda types, but the way we go about that creates 1000 new willing recruits. Are we better or worse off for killing the 100 in the first place?

The idea of al Qaeda and its ideology becomes more attractive with each new PR blunder like Gitmo or Abu Gharaib caused by military action.

We are trying to use an out-dated military model to fight what is, in essence, a guerilla war. I am not talking about what is going on in Iraq, but more like a pan-national guerilla force.

I have never said that Arabs are too barbaric to understand democracy.

Extra Stout

08-11-2006, 01:39 PM

I mean the war on terrorism will only be won by reducing political and economic instability.

The war on terrorism will be won by reducing poverty and oppression in the developing world.

This will take economic and political development, and a thorough re-shaping of our military.

Reference:
The Pentagon's New Map. (http://www.jackwalters.com/pentagonewmap.html) by P.M. Barnett
And the enemy understands that by increasing political and economic instability, it can maintain poverty and oppression in the Middle East, and foment revolution according to its desires.

In order to build stability, institutions, infrastructure, etc., have to be built. In order to destroy stability, one must only disrupt or destroy these things, which is vastly easier ("easier to destroy than create" cliche).

So as long as the enemy element exists, it is not possible to create the conditions which are necessary to establish stability, and win the war, as you say.

The enemy is in a favorable strategic spot where the more it acts against the interest of Middle Easterners, the more fervently Middle Easterners flock to its side. Islamic extremism has become both the cause and the effect of instability and oppression in the region. It's a devilish positive feedback loop.

So in order to accomplish the goals you mentioned, the extremist elements have to be neutralized. However, they are not distinct from the public at large. This makes extracting them extremely difficult.

Any attempt to extract them that has any prayer of working is going to inflame the public at large over there. There is no way in the short or medium term to "win hearts and minds" or "win the war of ideas." That can only happen in the long term.

Unfortunately, I doubt we have enough time for that until the threat becomes existential to the West.

boutons_

08-11-2006, 01:40 PM

"The war on terrorism will be won by reducing poverty and oppression in the developing world."

Therefore it will never be won.

Oil is the root cause of the US/West's presence and interest in the ME, especially in Saudi Arabia where the US military presence is seen as defiling sacred ground.

The windfall $Bs of petrodollars flowing into Iran and Venezuela empower those countries to undertake just about any destabilizing, terrorizing activity.

The Repugs have wasted 6 years, soon 8 years, by absolutely refusing a national energy policy that would reduce the US dependence on (foreign) oil, refusing to launch a national energy policy that reduced oil for transport (70% of US oil goes for transport), refused to force Repug-contriubiting owners of coal-fired electrical plants to clean up their plants.

The oil and coal corps obtain the Repug "energy policy" that they paid for: more oil, not less, not conservation. Dirty coal plants, not clean coal plants.

How about spending $500B on energy research, rather than wasting it into the sands of Iraq and the pockets of the MIC?

We have met the enemy, and they are the Repugs.

101A

08-11-2006, 02:57 PM

Yeah, that pesky constitution. We should just scrap it, so that the executive branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung) can do whatever it takes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung) to militarily fight our enemies.

I mean this isn't really a war of ideas that will be won by having the best idea and making people's lives better. It will be won by killing, and doing that on a massive scale. I mean if we can kill enough people, their sons and daughters will see just how righteous our cause is and love us more.

:rolleyes

Come on RG - I'm stating the obvious, not criticizing the constitution. That rant was written off the top of my head, and probably doesn't convey the full jist of what I am trying to say. Our constitutional form of government, our civilized traditions are exactly why we need to protect ourselves from those who wish to end those very traditions. I don't want to scrap or trample on anything.

I also don't believe this is a war of ideas. I think it is a war that is like any other, where the winner, ultimately, is the one who can inflict enough pain on the other guy to make him quit. The West's tolerance for both receiving, and inflicting, pain is VERY low, respectively. I think we need to strengthen our resolve to inflict pain. Again, politically incorrect, but ultimately the only solution - it has been for all of history. "Those who forget history....and all that".

As much as the left screams about Right Wing, short sighted, knee-jerk war-mongers; can you not see the similarities between what you are espousing, and those who appeased Hitler in the '30's? Ultimately we HAD to inflict the massive pain. I'm just suggesting we might skip some of the interim steps (as in trains bombed, planes dropped, buildings destroyed, etc...)

Ozzman

08-11-2006, 03:00 PM

exactly.

DarkReign

08-11-2006, 03:19 PM

exactly.

amwayplace redux

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 04:35 PM

The enemy is in a favorable strategic spot where the more it acts against the interest of Middle Easterners, the more fervently Middle Easterners flock to its side. Islamic extremism has become both the cause and the effect of instability and oppression in the region. It's a devilish positive feedback loop.

So in order to accomplish the goals you mentioned, the extremist elements have to be neutralized. However, they are not distinct from the public at large. This makes extracting them extremely difficult.

Any attempt to extract them that has any prayer of working is going to inflame the public at large over there. There is no way in the short or medium term to "win hearts and minds" or "win the war of ideas." That can only happen in the long term.

Unfortunately, I doubt we have enough time for that until the threat becomes existential to the West.

I am a bit more optimistic. The current bungling will hopefully end in 2008, and we can get someone a bit more competant and a better plan in place.

I think there is a LOT we can do both short and long term. I don't ascribe to the "them or us" scenario.

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 04:36 PM

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 04:47 PM

Come on RG - I'm stating the obvious, not criticizing the constitution. That rant was written off the top of my head, and probably doesn't convey the full jist of what I am trying to say. Our constitutional form of government, our civilized traditions are exactly why we need to protect ourselves from those who wish to end those very traditions. I don't want to scrap or trample on anything.

I also don't believe this is a war of ideas. I think it is a war that is like any other, where the winner, ultimately, is the one who can inflict enough pain on the other guy to make him quit. The West's tolerance for both receiving, and inflicting, pain is VERY low, respectively. I think we need to strengthen our resolve to inflict pain. Again, politically incorrect, but ultimately the only solution - it has been for all of history. "Those who forget history....and all that".

As much as the left screams about Right Wing, short sighted, knee-jerk war-mongers; can you not see the similarities between what you are espousing, and those who appeased Hitler in the '30's? Ultimately we HAD to inflict the massive pain. I'm just suggesting we might skip some of the interim steps (as in trains bombed, planes dropped, buildings destroyed, etc...)

The "it's just like appeasing Hitler" is a common theme in Right-wing thinking about this subject.

Germany was an industrial and scientific powerhouse and a formal nation.

What nation do terrorists control that we can appease?

The parallel is dangerously false because it blinds people into a certain way of thinking that is antithetical to winning.

I am not for giving the al Qaeda types what they want. I am for draining the swamp that breeds them. You need to wage a war of attrition and keep them from sprouting up as faster than you kill/neutralize them.

Any guerilla war is not a battle for ground with territory as the prize. It is a batte in which the people themselves are the prize.

This makes it every bit a war of ideas. The idea that the US is some great Satan bent on raping women and crushing Islam is what motivates these people and provides ready-made recruits willing to buy into idea. The US ends up supporting either tactitly or directly governments that are corrupt and/or incompetant. This feeds the idea.

If you want to counteract this idea you have to demonstrate the opposite. We need to truly become a force for change that makes people's lives in the deveoping world better.

Mr Dio

08-16-2006, 09:06 PM

You honestly don't think that this war can be won on ideas alone do you? Ideas don't do shit! It is action that works. My past boyfriends & I have always attneded every Gay Pride event to march for our rights & now we are close to realizing a union of our souls & holes.

I mean aren't you the same guy who says that the arab world is to barbaric to understand democracy. If you want to see true barbarians you should come with me & my dad to our S&M club.

Do us a favor, and reflect on yourself and see where the contradictions lie. Because i promise you, and i'm being sincere and not an asshole even though I tend to be an asshole when I get owned by someone's posts, that every post you put on seems to be done half wit.

You are a smart person, but you're methods of persuasion border on a NBAdan level. I have had a crush on NBADan for many a moon & if he won't join my boyfriend & I then I will be his enemy. YES!, I'm an asshole & I love in my too!! I a real life :princess baby!

WTF???

ShackO

08-16-2006, 10:32 PM

And the enemy understands that by increasing political and economic instability, it can maintain poverty and oppression in the Middle East, and foment revolution according to its desires.

In order to build stability, institutions, infrastructure, etc., have to be built. In order to destroy stability, one must only disrupt or destroy these things, which is vastly easier ("easier to destroy than create" cliche).

So as long as the enemy element exists, it is not possible to create the conditions which are necessary to establish stability, and win the war, as you say.

The enemy is in a favorable strategic spot where the more it acts against the interest of Middle Easterners, the more fervently Middle Easterners flock to its side. Islamic extremism has become both the cause and the effect of instability and oppression in the region. It's a devilish positive feedback loop.

So in order to accomplish the goals you mentioned, the extremist elements have to be neutralized. However, they are not distinct from the public at large. This makes extracting them extremely difficult.

Any attempt to extract them that has any prayer of working is going to inflame the public at large over there. There is no way in the short or medium term to "win hearts and minds" or "win the war of ideas." That can only happen in the long term.

Unfortunately, I doubt we have enough time for that until the threat becomes existential to the West.

Sounds pretty grim………

If the ppl believe they are disenfranchised they have no reason to resist the terrorist elements destroying everything around them……….

In Africa, India, China etc.. they have been able to show the locals how the parks and the game in them is to their benefit and thus they are more motivated to resist the poachers and those seeking to exploit it…

Most ppl in the ME have little vested in the status quo and will remain apathetic until they do…….

Obstructed_View

08-16-2006, 11:06 PM

I mean this isn't really a war of ideas that will be won by having the best idea and making people's lives better. It will be won by killing, and doing that on a massive scale. I mean if we can kill enough people, their sons and daughters will see just how righteous our cause is and love us more.

:rolleyes
Yeah, dropping ideas out of planes stopped the Japanese and the Germans in their fucking tracks. Kum bay yah.

I guess "war" to you means lobbing a couple of missiles at Afghanistan while your mistress is testifying to the grand jury.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-16-2006, 11:13 PM

This war is no different."

Typical failure of understanding by the right-wing radicals. In fact, mostly no attempt to understand at all. Just a bunch of half-baked, knee-jerk emotional issues. Like Viet Cong irregulars in VN, the war on terror is VERY different. I can't believe you people are so fucking stupid, over and over again.

Croutons, you don't understand jack shit about what's going on in the Middle East, but you still spout your bullshit on here. Fucking read a book. I can't believe you're so fucking stupid, over and over again.

The idea of al Qaeda and its ideology becomes more attractive with each new PR blunder like Gitmo or Abu Gharaib caused by military action.

We are trying to use an out-dated military model to fight what is, in essence, a guerilla war.

The only difference right now is the liberal left is so damn pacifistic that they're bringing down the West's will to fight. Seriously, look at what's going on, and the line of demarcation in all this is really easy to see...

Something like Abu Ghraib or Gitmo happens, and it motivates a few more ignorant souls to enlist on the side of Al Qaeda and fight against modern western civilization.

They bring down two buildings in NY, slaughter innocent women and children in the streets of Iraq, get busted trying to blow up 10 airliners in three hours, and it motivates a few more ignorant souls to blame it all on our president, caution against racial profiling, and advance the painfully ignorant view that if we 'just try and talk to them, everything will be okay.'

It's not a guerilla war. Radical Islam has picked off where they left off several hundred years ago with the Muslim Conquests, only this time their exploits are broadcast live on worldwide television.

The 'guerilla warfare' was the same shit that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, and his followers used to expand their empire to most of Europe.

And in essence, it took the Crusades to undo all that. Now, I'm not advocating a religious 'Christians vs. Muslims' type war, but people need to get it through their heads that what Osama and co. has teed up is essentially going to be the modernized western countries of the world against radical Islam.

The shitty thing about it all is people like you, croutons, and Dan don't seem to realize, or at least want to admit, that this is indeed what we are facing.

And like it or not, it's basically going to take something on the scale of what 101A is describing to beat back the mess that radical Islam is trying to make of the world.

The irony of it all is that when that confrontation comes, we'll have the Russians, Chinese, etc. fighting right beside us because they are all dealing with the same problems - you just don't hear about it on CNN because that would make the 'nice' Muslim terrorists look bad. Can't have that :rolleyes

Obstructed_View

08-16-2006, 11:18 PM

So we go out and kill 100 Al Qaeda types, but the way we go about that creates 1000 new willing recruits. Are we better or worse off for killing the 100 in the first place?
Actually, those groups are constantly recruiting, and nothing we do one way or another makes any difference to those who want us dead. The idea that the people in those countries are "live and let live" until we do something stupid and piss them off and make them militant is just plain wrong. Hezbollah hides arms in houses and those people are willing to parade their dead loved ones in front of the cameras and blame Israel for shooting back. American Islamic groups refuse to label Hezbollah as a terrorist orgainization. There are millions of people all over the world complicit in spreading those notions, which were inspired by the Nazis. The thing that ties those people together, now more than ever, is religion.

The idea of al Qaeda and its ideology becomes more attractive with each new PR blunder like Gitmo or Abu Gharaib caused by military action.
Actually, the justification for what they are already doing is spread any time there is a PR blunder. The reason there are PR blunders on only one side is because we are open and honest about the mistakes that people make on our side, and we have a free media that we allow to get conned into doing fluff pieces for our enemies if they so choose. Those people are still trying to kill us. Al Qaeda was planning to kill us in the name of the Palestinians while Bill Clinton was inviting Arafat to the white house.

We are trying to use an out-dated military model to fight what is, in essence, a guerilla war. I am not talking about what is going on in Iraq, but more like a pan-national guerilla force.
We are trying to use an updated military model that has yet to be successful, one that allows the free media to instantly report from within the combat zone. We are also having to fight terrorists all over the world while we are criticized for such things as profiling and monitoring phone conversations for keywords, in many cases by Americans who are more interested in jumping on any opportunity to discredit the administration for political gain.

I have never said that Arabs are too barbaric to understand democracy.
That would have been one of your more astute observations had you made it. It might have taken too much courage to actually put in black and white.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-16-2006, 11:18 PM

I'd just like to say 3 things about the OP.

Black and white.

US v them.

Cause and effect.

Think especially about the third one. What is the true cause of the world's instability? That is what needs to be addressed.

Obstructed_View

08-16-2006, 11:34 PM

The true cause of the world's instability is lack of education. The kids in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to school. That's the only chance the world has of not having to kill every Muslim on the planet in the next 100 years in order to survive.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-16-2006, 11:57 PM

ShackO

08-17-2006, 12:06 AM

HAHAHheeee............ LOL

The problem with the world is man.........

Since the beginning (whenever you whish to choose it to be) till now there has been hate and war.......... The has never been nor will there ever be some utopia……..

Obstructed_View

08-17-2006, 12:14 AM

Well, I would argue that it's a lot more complex than that.

However, generalise education to standard of living and I reckon you are getting a bit closer. Raise the general standard of living of the Middle East, which means more education, more jobs, better food, more luxury items, then see how things change. The same thing happens WITHIN societies - raise people's standard of living in a neighbourhood and, surprise surprise, crime, suicide, etc. decrease.

How do you give more jobs, better food, and luxury items to people that can't read? Any of the issues may be more complex, but it all starts with education. Fundamentalist Islam as a political religion relies on the masses to be uneducated and devoutly religious in order to be able to whip them into a frenzy against percieved objects of their destruction such as Jews or Americans. Just look at the literacy rates.