What would you say to change in tack?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by UhihaJax, Apr 11, 2004.

  1. UhihaJax
    Offline

    UhihaJax Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    First of all, pleasure to be here, i'm brand new and wanted to make a point that I felt wasn't really being made at present.

    War on Terror.

    Not going too well really, jumped into afganistan. al-quaeda split up and ran all over the place. A battle won but certainly not the war.

    So now we're in a position that we know there are terrorists plotting out there, but where? Could even be in the states, cell mentality means a group of people can gang together get help from others utilizing the wonderful technology of the net and create havoc all over the world.

    So what the hell are we actually doing?

    The problem is that this is very unconventunal warfare, a lot like the problems with WW1 where the generals had never come up against an equal power before (it had all been easy African Tribes which is why everyone said "it'll all be over by Christmas" when it blatently wasn't going to be) . Complete tactical stalemate and millions died as a result.
    I think we have exactly the same problem at present. "Pacifying" Iraq and putting pressure on governments that supposedly "support" terror does nothing but fuel the flames of terror.

    To think that Osama previously had to convince people to join him, now fundamnetalists are gathering all over the world happy to join in the Jihad.

    If we are to look at recent Islamic papers, they all call for the coallition forces to pull out of Iraq immediately, obviously recent military campaigns are not very popular amoungst the Muslim population of the world, which is also the prime recruiting ground for fundamental terrorists, we should certainly note this point.

    Okay here's a crazy idea. How about we stop.
    If we're going to look on this as ther religeous war that Bush "crusade" and Osama "Jihad" both seem to want (it's the only reason Bush is going to get re-elected) and are heading towards, why dont we look at our holy books?
    The bible says "turn the other cheek". A message that has repeatedly been ignored by the U.S and other western civilisations.

    To give statistics to support this claim:

    Union Pacific: 7 workers were murdered by the Sioux tribe.
    Retaliation: The entire Sioux tribe pretty much wiped out, no negotiation.

    Israel since 1990: 975 Israelis dead through suicide bombers.
    Retaliation: 2000 Palestinians dead.

    9/11: 3,000 people killed.
    Retaliation: Just looking at the Iraq war 6,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS were killed from 50 bombing campaigns led by incorrect intelligence form U.S forces.

    Fallujah: 4 brutally murdered
    Retailiation: 450 Iraqis killed.

    Okay so the forces of the Western civilisations are winning on body count, but how would people feel about losing for a little while?
    Okay this sounds crazy, but lets look at Iran for a second.

    The Shah was put in place by western governments as a preventive measure due to a disliked selection through democratic elections.
    Result: Fall of the Shah in the late seventies and a funndamentalist state declared.

    Okay that was intervention and the result was bad.
    Lets look at non- intervention.

    2001 - Present - Iran
    Student movement, Womens movement, population calling for fair elections, political freedom, the dismantlement of the fundamentalist state.

    Wow thats pretty good, and no western government had to spend any taxes (your money) on it at all!

    Why is this? Culture.
    I dont know if anyone here has played civilisation 3 but it's a fantastic game and explains my point very well.

    In the game, each city you have has a culture radius, this radius is increased by building universites, churches and such like.
    If the cultural radius extends into another cities border of an opponent in the game there is a chance that the city will actually convert to your side!

    Okay lets apply this example to reality. The Berlin wall.
    The wall fell because citizens in the east weren't happy with the living conditions, they wanted what people had in the western side of the city. How did they know about this and how could they compare? Well, they were able to pick up radio stations from the west side of the city in the east side, and eventually this inequality led to fall of the wall by the people en-mass.

    The media and culture that people consume world wide is 90% american, think about it, the jobs already being done! But military campaigns taint this media, people dis-associate themselves from it because of the military connection (i've certainly consumed less american media since 2001, and i'm not a muslim!).

    I apply this to terrorism now.
    If the western forces are not fighting, invading, "pacifying" (call it what you will) Osama will have very few recruits to choose from, less experitise, less people willing to die for the cause (e.g suicide bombers), but if the war continues as it does Osama is gonna have many, many people to throw at the west and we will all live in terror.

    War on Terror should perhaps be re-phrased to war on Hydra. The hydra being the Mythical creature that grows back it's head whenever it is cut off. Perhaps a better example in Fantasia where one broom becomes two if "pacified".

    Theres food for thought, what do ya reckon?

    jax
     
  2. st8_o_mind
    Offline

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    Welcome. Your posting was very thoughtful. I am surprised you have not been flamed yet. These boards have a definitive right bent. Don't be discouraged. Free exchange of ideas is what the net is all about.

    As you point out, the war on terrorism is, in the final sense, cannot be won on the battlefield. That is the very definition of terrorism, or as the military puts it, asymmetric warfare. The only way to succeed is -- to use the Vietnam era terminology -- "to win the hearts and minds" of those we are fighting.

    I would make a distinction. Iraq is not a terrorist cell or organization. It is a nation with an ancient culture and history -- "the cradle of civilization". As such, it has a strong national identity.

    Any nation will resist what they perceive to be military occupation. The Palestinians resist. The Vietnamese resisted. Churchill said "We will fight on the beaches..." and the British resisted. Who would argue that if a foreign power tried to occupy the US 70 year old men and women would meet them on the beaches with their shotguns. The Iraqi's are no different. Failure to recognize this, led the provisional authority to make a number of blunders, the results of which include the escalation of bloodshed we are now reading about in our papers.

    Finally, I must disagree with one of your central points. Although I opposed the war before it started, and believe the Administration's execution of the war and occupation has been a disaster for the Iraqi's, the US and for the wider war on terrorism, I don't believe the US can withdraw without finding a political formula that the majority of the Iraqi's (and the international community) can live with.

    First there is not the political will in the US to do what we did in Vietnam. Nixon called it "peace with honor." It is also known as the "cut and run" way to end a war. The political right will oppose leaving because it would mean a great loss of credibility to the US and that comes with a lot of negative consequences, some I might even agree with. I feel that the invasion in the first place cost the US is credibility in the eyes of much of the world but oppose, like many on the left, a precipitous withdrawal for other reasons. After destroying much of the Iraqi infrastructure and its security forces, to leave now with the reconstruction unfinished would result in the death of lots of innocent Iraqi’s. The Geneva Convention is clear on this. The occupying power is responsible for the well-being of the people under occupation. Second, it would most likely result in a civil war that would be a disaster, kill lots of people and possibly spread throughout the region. Ack. What a mess. So what to do? I think the other parts of your posting address that question quite well.
     
  3. UhihaJax
    Offline

    UhihaJax Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I figure the solution is to change hats.

    Yes, thats right hats.
    Give control of Iraq to the U.N (all Iraqis would see that as a great sacrifice) and have all the U.S forces change the military hats to blue U.N ones.
    That way insurgents will only be able to attack the U.N rather than an "American Force".

    I would actually classify myself as right wing, but it depends on what people ideas of right wing and left wing are.
    To me there are four wings, one branching up and down with Totalitarialism at the top and Libertarianism at the bottom and the left and right are occupied by the old socialist, capitalist idea:
    Left being the needs of society are above those of the individual
    Right being the needs of the individual are above those of society.

    I'd place my self bottom right but towards the centre cause both side do have value in places.
    I've never thought about right and left in regards to foreign policy how on earth would that work?
     
  4. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I think we're doing the War on Terror correctly. Sure, the more Islamic states we invade, the more potential recruits there will be for Osama, but remember that in order to strike us, they also need funds. By deposing governments that support terrorism, we will slowly starve it. Sure, the Iraqi invasion will cause several more people to be willing to blow themselves up, but where do they get the explosives? It's a great tactic in a war. If you can't hit their forces directly, you take out the supply lines.

    Also, I'm going to point out the flipside to the casualty counts, except the one about the Sioux. I'll always be ashamed of the U.S. genocide of American Indians.

    A large portion of those 2000 were Palestinian militants who were either about to blow themselves up or shoot some people. Another large portion were innocent civilians caught in the blasts of suicide bombs meant for Israelis.

    Those 6,000 you speak of resulted from collateral damage on BOTH sides. It's also a drop in the ocean compared to civilian casualties in WWII during any comparable period of time. It's also a drop in the ocean compared to the number of civilians Saddam killed on purpose. I'll also take this time to remind you that Saddam hung women up in the village square by their feet and completely nude during their period. I really can't think of a much more degrading thing to do to a woman.

    Once again, those 450 were all people caught out after curfew or shooting at us, and while I'm sure a few of those were innocent people on important errands, they knew the risks, and we've gotta get those extremists outta there somehow before more people get killed.

    I'm glad Iran is reforming peacefully, but that kind of thing doesn't happen in a dictatorship unless the people get the military on our side. The Iraqi people have been wanting change for years, but acting on that desire resulted in death.

    Another thing the Iraqi war did is set an example. Several rogue states were defying the U.N., thinking they wouldn't act, and they wouldn't. The U.S. got fed up with this and hit the softest target, a country with a weak military and little public support. Now the other rogue states know we mean business and are being much more cordial. I mean, Lybia has been hostile for decades, and all of a sudden they're all "buddy buddy" with us. I wonder why.
     
  5. eric
    Offline

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Are you insane, or just naive !

    Win the hearts and minds of these fanatics, you must be joking me. A well placed 7.62mm slug of lead is the only way you are going to win anything against these backward animals. I believe extermination is a very fitting word for it.

    As far as winning the war on terrorism, it will take time and there will be some battles lost, as is in all war. What we need is perserverence and some guts to sometimes do what must be done in the self-interest of this nation.

    If the war on terrorism is taking longer than you think it should, you can blame the bleeding hearts and politically correct idiots in this country for that. People who have not lost any friends or family in 9-11, yet have much to say how we should deal with future threats. Well I have and in my opinion we must do whatever it takes, got that, whatever, to afford ourselves the utmost protection against future attacks.

    If that means military action, judicial action, covert action, profiling, or intense scrutinty of aliens, then so be it. They don't like it, stay the hell out of this country
     
  6. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Unfortunately we let the UN handle iraq for 12 years. Where did it get us? They managed to make a good chunk of money for themselves, France and Russia through Oil for "Food" programs that yileded no food to the Iraqi people. They managed to lay down sanctions and mandates that they never backuped with force, thus enhancing the problem further beyond their control. They managed to send in inspectors who were repeatedly duped, arrested or simply kicked out of the country and did nothing about it.

    So what will the UN do now that the US and its coalition has liberated the country in less than a year and are close to handing it over to the Iraqi people for the first time in over 30 years?
     
  7. eric
    Offline

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bingo !
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    That is precisely why we are doing what we are in Iraq.




    The only way to show the terrorists that terror doesn't work is to kill them.

    Attacking terrorists while at the same time trying to foster democracy, freedom, and a free market economy in areas that breed terrorism is an ambitious plan. It is also the correct one.

    If the whole situation escalates into a greater clash of civilizations, so be it. If thats what they want then that is what they'll have.
     
  9. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    You forget also that in Civilization 3 when a country attacks you, alot of your allies immediately and unconditionally come to your aide. The UN is a victory element and not a viable part of the game.

    So Civilization 3 isnt exactly a str8 simulation of the Real world. Although i do recomend it to anyone as it is a very fun game.
     
  10. UhihaJax
    Offline

    UhihaJax Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Hmmm. I was waiting for that......

    Okay, these three I can do in one.
    What people tend to forget, is that while we are happily sitting back at home far away from the front there are people fighting at their DOORS.
    Lets take a hypothetical example.

    You have a family lets call them the Smiths (not very Muslim, but bear with me)
    They comprise of two parents, and four children aged 23, 15, 8 and 2.

    the 23 year old is an insurgent, his father does not approve but he's young and rebelious (remember that America was built on rebellion) unfortunately he's having a bit of a detremental effect on his younger brother (the 15 year old) who's highly impressionable.

    Now lets say they live in Falluja, the americans attack and the 23 year old goes off to fight at mid-day when his parents are engaged in taking care of the younger children.
    The 15 year old follows him at a distance cause he wants to be like his brother cause he thinks he's strong and looks up to him.
    The 23 year old and his insurgent chums start defending (remember this is an offensive that the U.S are engaging in on behalf of 4 murders) as you can probably tell the 15 year old gets caught up in this, maybe he's getting ammunition for his brother, maybe he's just hanging back and gets caught up in a U.S offensive, whatever.
    The 15 year old is shot and injured, his father wondering where the hell his children have got to is looking for him, he finds him, tries to drag him to safety but gets shot as well.
    The mother and children are off to Mosque cause it's time to pray they dont know that the insurgents are using the Mosque as a base for attacks.
    Well you all know the rest of the story the mosque gets destroyed by a laser guided missile and now from this family we have 5 casualties. The 23 year old has fallen back and is safe.

    So great, we tried to kill the 23 year old but killed the rest of his family instead, thats perfect, well they knew the risks huh? They deserved that?

    Remember we are fighting on their doorsteps, their praying locations, innocent people will die, families will get dragged into the conflict. The same happens in Palestine and has been happening in Iraq.
    The 6000 I mentioned were from 50 air strikes by the U.S that FAILED (e.g crap intelligence). I know they may not tell you this stuff in the States but if you check out the BBC you might find out stuff that your government doesn't want you to know, at least the Brits have some broadcasting standards.

    Bringing up Saddam Hussains death toll wont win you any arguments, remember we're trying to free them from him, we cant compare ourselves to him!
    So when the death toll hits 200,000 we can say, hey your still a few hundred thousand better off then you were under Saddam, right?

    Libya (by thier foreign secretary's own admission) only gave it up because they were sick of the sanctions and wanted to make some money again, Gadaffi is definately not on our side.
    If you still want to play this whole humanitarian bullshit in the case of liberating Iraq how about you look at Zimbabwe, everything is fine there huh? Tibet? North Korea? Ethipoia?Eriteria? China? Or how about Russia? They're all countries that are either being oppressed or completely fucked up, are we doing anything to help? Fuck no? Do we intend to? Well whats in it for us? Zimbabwe aint got shit, same for North Korea, and hey lets not piss off China they make all our stuff.
    Humanitarian? Bullshit, complete and utter trite, I cant believe so many of you have swallowed this crap.......

    As for this

    You still angry about that, didn't afganistan do it for you, how about Iraq? Okay so when do we press stop? Or do we keep going until every single non-american is dead, will you be happy then? Do you think those that died in 9/11 want us to keep going through this same crap again and again?

    All i'm trying to say is that actively running around shooting people, invading countries might be having an ADVERSE effect.
    Don't you ever stop to think that your policy might be making things worse? That more 9/11's might happen BECAUSE of the retaliation after 9/11.
    How about we look at the options instead of charging into it trying to do "something".

    To be honest 9/11 has given Bush the excuse to pursue his own personal agenda (Iraq, Iraq, Iraq).
    Many insurgents have lost friends and family in the previously mentioned 50 incorrect air-strikes or due to collateral dmage during the war, does that justify their actions, does that justify those 4 deaths in falluja? Cuase guess what? They got the same excuse as YOU!
    So what your saying is that it's okay to kill people if someone you know has been killed.
    Eye for and eye and the world goes blind.

    In regards to terrorism costing money and needing funding? hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Seriously you don't know anything, I could make enough explosive to kill a few hundred people for the matter of a few hundred dollars, infact if someone is going to be suicide bomber THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN STOP THEM.

    If I say decide to take my motor vehicle off the road and smash it into a mall whats there to stop me? Jack shit.
    This is why we now have the "patriot" act (named after what it isn't, so for example if you had an act that took peoples sweets away you'd call it the "giving free sweets to people act") to try to control people more, so that people cant be in a position to do these kind of things.
    And at what cost? Every single one of our freedoms, thats what it will take. So while everyone is being caught up in 9/11 hysteria they are taking away civil liberites.
    Guantanamo Bay. The 5 that were sent back to Britain WERN'T INVOLVED! One of them was made prisoner by the Taliban while backpacking in 2000 only to be then be made prisoner by the U.S forces for another 2 years.
    Do you know?
    They were beaten, psycologically tortured, refused almost every single human right?

    But yeah thats fine because 9/11 man , 9/11! As long as it's in the name of 9/11 do what you want. Well thats great cause that's what they're doing.

    I know i'm gonna get it for criticizing people's interpretations of 9/11, but face it america has had it easy, 9/11 is small fries when you compare it to the suffering of the rest of the world, there hasn't been a war on american soil since the Civil war.
    Perhaps we should chill out (me included, i'm getting over heated)
    and try to put this into perspective. That means asking these kind of questions and wondering how many lives 9/11 justifies cause at present it's way over the 3000 people that lost their lives in 9/11.
    Whats gonna be worse, 9/11 or the reactionary aftermath?

    jax
     

Share This Page