War on terror doesn't work

okay, so we're trying to honor a committment a think tank tells us we need to accomplish to a country that didn't attack us then....

obviously, i'm not up on RAND, but it just seems to me if they want to mitigate any problem, they should at least consider the root of it

meanwhile, we're suppose to just kick back, and wait for that rose petal parade in Bagdad, and $1 a gal gas, assuming these folks have any tangible think tank thought then....?

and hey, while they've their pointy little think tank beanies on, perhaps they could check into wall street's debacle there too eh?...

~S~
 
okay, so we're trying to honor a committment a think tank tells us we need to accomplish to a country that didn't attack us then....

No Rand doesn't tell us we "need to accomplish" anything.

Rand's purpose is to help solve specific problems, not decide policy

obviously, i'm not up on RAND, but it just seems to me if they want to mitigate any problem, they should at least consider the root of it

I'm inclined to think that had RAND been consulted by the Bush team about what the proper response to the 9-11 was, they would NOT have suggested invading IRAQ.

I have very little doubt, they would have suggested attacking, possible even invading Afghanistan, though.

and hey, while they've their pointy little think tank beanies on, perhaps they could check into wall street's debacle there too eh?...

What's with the anti-intellectual sarcasm, sparky?

"pointy little think tank beanies"

The RAND institute OFTEN advises our government to do things exactly the opposite of what the current administration want to do

RAND don't seem to have an agenda except problem solving no matter how the current administration feels about their solutions.

As, for example, in the report (which you decided wasn't worth reading I guess) where they suggest that sending America's current policy of sending ARMIES to track down terrorists is foolish and wasteful.
 
Last edited:
What's with the anti-intellectual sarcasm, sparky?

well something tells me we should thank god we don't get all the think tanks we pay for then Editec

and no, i haven't time to read up on RAND....

S
 
well something tells me we should thank god we don't get all the think tanks we pay for then Editec

and no, i haven't time to read up on RAND....

S

Well maybe you should at least read the link before you go off half cocked.
 
well it was sunday.....

ok, Rand seems to be a established, respected, and concise in their report. I would also comment that their clients/grantors as well as other 'about rand' jems seem to be on the up&up...

they've a good stance on how to mitigate the Iraq debacle, yet i suspect the more sense they make, the more it will fall on jingo-selective hearing sorts

why would i say this? because it's becoming increasingly obvious with time that the M.E. debacle is an animal meant to be sustained, not mitigated
 
well it was sunday.....

ok, Rand seems to be a established, respected, and concise in their report. I would also comment that their clients/grantors as well as other 'about rand' jems seem to be on the up&up...

they've a good stance on how to mitigate the Iraq debacle, yet i suspect the more sense they make, the more it will fall on jingo-selective hearing sorts

why would i say this? because it's becoming increasingly obvious with time that the M.E. debacle is an animal meant to be sustained, not mitigated

I concur.

My point is that the RAND institute is NOT supporting the current methodology that this current administration is employing to track down terrorists.

One of the things that we need to keep in mind is that our government is not the monolith of thought that we so often think it is.

There are honest players in it who tell our elected officials the truth as they see it, and they are ignored, often punished for doing their jobs.

We saw this when general after general retired rather than support Bush's invasion.

We saw it when analysists in the CIA told our POTUS that Iraq presented no immediate threat to our nation, too.

I saw the same damned thing during Viet Nam, too.
 
well i see the rand staff has phd's in muslim culture, as well as other similar credentialed individuals.

but it all reminds me of those cancer specialists, who know everything there is about the treatment of cancer(s), yet draw a blank on the causes of it

advancing the anology, i see everything orbiting the malignancy of terrorism, and little on the underlying motives of greed and oppression

so even if they're heard and acted on, it'll simply be a fix that might gain us time , much like we're doing with wall street in fact....

I saw the same damned thing during Viet Nam, too.

heard of wintersoldier? no surprise if you haven't as there isn't an American network that will put up with them

lots in common with their Vietnam counterparts in said respect

give all these fella's one sentence each in a how to report, and i'll bet it would have more substance and wieght than all the phd's rands got....
 
meanwhile, what IS going down is interesting......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27288456

"Sheik Jassim," as his tribesmen call Sweidawi, is among a new generation of tribal leaders asserting influence across Sunni areas. They have won their respect by fighting Sunni insurgents of the al-Qaeda in Iraq group. With American money and support, they have brought a fragile order to Anbar province, once Iraq's most violent theater, accomplishing in months what the U.S. military could not do in years.
 
meanwhile, what IS going down is interesting......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27288456

"Sheik Jassim," as his tribesmen call Sweidawi, is among a new generation of tribal leaders asserting influence across Sunni areas. They have won their respect by fighting Sunni insurgents of the al-Qaeda in Iraq group. With American money and support, they have brought a fragile order to Anbar province, once Iraq's most violent theater, accomplishing in months what the U.S. military could not do in years.

Of COURSE if we want to track down terrorists, we're going to need allies in the Moslem world.

Why?

Because they, NOT WE, are capable of doing the POLICE work it takes to find them and bring them to justice.

Armies are NOT police forces.

That was RAND's point, I think.
 
agreed, but inasmuch as the insight to gain muslim support may exist at rand, our governance seems to keep pushing the extreemist aire of muslims in general

dem operatives (at least i think they're dem operatives, because nobody can be so stupid) come forward at McCain rallies claiming Obama is muslim, or terrorist sympathizer....

political theater at such levels is distressing, if only in it portrayal of the majority audience it chooses to target

such as, i not only concere with your point, but elevate it to the realm of public gestalt.....
 
Radical Islamic terrorists is an Islamic problem and it won't get fixed unless the Islamic nations and people re-take control and stop listening to these fanatics BS. But those in power are were not going to do so voluntarily because much of their power depends on strict Islamic beliefs. (Like the king was chosen to be king and has the right to screw you all he wants) If the people didn't believe this, that the king and his relatives are all literally holier than thou, they might just revolt! Well, the Taliban figured out how to be even holier than them. They'll even blow themselves to bits to kill infidels for Allah!! Now beat that! And they got the massess (a generally pretty ignorant bunch) attention and got them all to run down to their nearest bomb vest store to get one before they were all sold out.
Oddly, this is not a new tactic. It was first introduced into the middle east during WW II by none other than one of our favorite murderous lunatics - Hitler. He and Imam of Jerusalem got to be bud's and put together a special muslim SS battalion that created such ill feelings in and around the Bosnia area that the people there are still trying to kill off their relatives.
That doesn't mean we should or can let our guard down. Those same people are here in the US and Europe. I happen to be aware, through my work, of many attempts that have occurred in and around my community. These events to not make the news, which is both fortunate and unfortunate. It's fortunate because we are given an opportunity to obtain a lot of information without a lot of interference but unfortunate in that people are so clueless, that we are truely at war.
 
So we need covert CIA operations to kill the key members of the terrorist organizations where they are. Roger.

I wish.

Sadly the CIA seems unable to infiltrate anything anytime EVER, no matter how much money or time they are given to do so.

The CIA coulnd't inflitrate the Kremlin after nearly fifty years of trying.

The role the CIA does best is BUYING allies.


And one hopes that that is exactly what they are doing now, too.

There is no way in hell that some CIA whitebread scion from Yale is going to inflitrate Al Qada or the Taliban.

What we can an must do if find or create allies from within the Moslem world.

THOSE PEOPLE might be able to infiltrate into those organizations.

But that is really police work, more than anything a military can do, and that was really RAND's point.

oh yeah, one more point...


to kill the key members of the terrorist organizations where they are.

I doubt simply killing the "leaders" is going to solve the problem.

If our information about these organziations is correct, it is NOT a top down organization.

Apparently these organizations are fragmented into cells which are basically not taking orders from a top leadership. So killing the "masterminds" isn't going to work, either.

It seems to me that the only way to track them down is where they get their money.

But since the Islamic world's banking system is so very very different than ours is, even that method (which works so well with our organizaed criminals) isn't really an avenue for tracking these terrorist cells down.

The long term solution is to find some way of living in peace with the Islamic world, of course.

If the governments and people of Islam didn't hate us, these criminal terrorist organizations wouldn't have the resources they have, nor could they hide in Islamic lands, either.

Another good reason for us to find ALLIES in the Islamic world, methinks.
 
Last edited:
The long term solution is to find some way of living in peace with the Islamic world, of course.

If the governments and people of Islam didn't hate us, these criminal terrorist organizations wouldn't have the resources they have, nor could they hide in Islamic lands, either.

Another good reason for us to find ALLIES in the Islamic world, methinks.[/QUOTE]

That would make sense, but I was warned years ago once by a Lebanese friend of mine, who grew up there, that "the west doesn't know what a modern day religious war is all about". There isn't room for compromise." I've heard this repeatedly since, from Indians, Pakistanis, Isrealis, Arabs (of all kinds), Persians (of all kinds), and Turks. The point in a religious war is to draw sharp lines that are either black or white.

In a racial war the arguement is that the other race is somehow not as human as you are. But that falls apart once we humans all get into one place and start mixing it up...the arguement fails over time.

In a religious war it's very different. You are either saved or not, or part of God's fold or not, and it's not based on something you can see, feel, touch or smell, it's generally based on what someone is telling you. It's a "I'm OK and your not OK" thing. The arguement isn't as simple, in fact, the arguements get ridiculously complicated. So complicated the people have to have "interpretors". So, unless the interpreters agree the people can't agree and what are the chances of that?

How many Christian denominations are there? Jewish? Muslim? No one general religion can even agree with one another. As an interpreter, to agree would require relinquishing your uniqueness and your power base. It's the manipulative leading the blind.

Islam is unique because it was supposed to be Version 3.0. A better version from 1.0 (Jewish) and 2.0 (Christians), but it hasn't done so well?? Poverty pervaded till well into the last century, their countries run by theorcractic monarchies, while Versions 1.0 and 2.0 thrived, became educated, free, and prosperous. Envy, something they won't admit, is a big part of their hatred for the west.

Combine envy and religious dogma and I think my friend was right, there isn't much room for compromise.
 
of course it doesnt work.Thsi fake and phony war going in is just for big business and corporations in the US to profit.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top