Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Avatar4321, Jan 16, 2007.
Why are we so slow to learn from history?
Who knows? It's pretty clear handwriting on the wall. Still, at all levels, lessons learned are ignored in favor of some Einstein thinking he's reinventing the wheel.
I think that there is no agreed means of fighting Terrorism, and that's why we don't see more support. Terrorism is ultimately not solvable through military action like WWII was. All we had to do there is kill Hitler and we were done.
Terrorism is not organized like a traditional government. If we just kill Terrorist leaders that does not get us anywhere, because there are many more ready to take their place. Instead the real head of Terrorism is the social/political/religious/cultural situation in the Middle East.
I like to think about it like crime over here in the US. Police can only really catch criminals after they've committed an offense, and our military can only really kill people after they've become Terrorists. If you want to eliminate crime in a city, you can't just greatly increase the number of policemen, that doesn't work. You have to tackle issues like poverty, and as you can see from this message board there is a great disagreement about how to do that. Liberals think that we need social programs to help lift people up and conservatives think that those programs just convince people not to get jobs and hold them back.
In Iraq the military can't solve the situation. Their job is to try and keep the country somewhat stable while we solve the social/political/religious/cultural issue, not eliminate Terrorism by killing all the Terrorist leaders. There is a great disagreement over how to best combat the complex situation in the Middle East, and that is why we are having trouble galvanizing support. I think we have a common driving force here, but no agreed method of implementing it, and a lot of questioning about how effectively we can implement it.
The reason nobody has learned from this particular history is because you are comparing apples and oranges...
You do realize that this doesn't destroy the thesis of Beck's argument?
Okay, let's talk fruit:
APPLE: American was in an isolationistic mode before WWII.
APPLE: We've been in one ever since Vietnam.
APPLE: WWII was a inevitable global war against an "axis of evil".
APPLE: You'll see. Limey's first.
APPLE: WWII was a war against a dangerous ideology.
APPLE : So is the WoT.
This is far more like WWII than Vietnam, the liberal's "orange". But you know what they say about those that refuse to learn from history, doomed to repeat it.
* cough * Neville Chamberlain * cough *
Apples to apples again.
It is good that we are reluctant to go to war. Germany 1939 showed no hesitation when it came to deal with their threats. War is one-way-only and binary. You go to war and if you win the cause was just, else it was not. Also a very true lesson from history.
I agree that it is good that we are reluctant, but there comes a point when the results of reluctance become inevitably dangerous. It be nicer if we learned to recognize when we need to fight.
Separate names with a comma.