Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[Comrade]

Why don't you go on a brit board and bash america? You're way beyond donkey poop-

Say the word, I shall release the feces flinging monkey upon him!

 

[Annie]

Say the word, I shall release the feces flinging monkey upon him!

Word.

 

[Comrade]

Word.

RELEASE THE MONKEY
!

 

[RAGE]

There is a real possibility that we could loose this war on terror, most dont understand the full scope of things. This war is not really about something that happened recently, its centuries old. This is just we are finally getting involved in it.

It will never be over until we put a bullet in every last one of those clairics heads. It will not be over until we have beaten the will to kill out of them.
It will not be over until they have nothing left but submission and change.

Going alone on theories which can very well be possibilities like this.
http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html we can assume they are in this to the death. Osama knew exactly what he started and its going almost as he planned. He didnt expect us to actually go after him.

There is no such thing as peace with these people, Only death because it brings them rewards.
You need to forget all about the justification B.S. and check exactly what it is we are facing. Its certain death. Its only a matter of who strikes first.

 

[MtnBiker]

But then (thank god) I don't live there

I'll second that!

 

[Comrade]

There is a real possibility that we could loose this war on terror, most dont understand the full scope of things. This war is not really about something that happened recently, its centuries old. This is just we are finally getting involved in it.

It will never be over until we put a bullet in every last one of those clairics heads. It will not be over until we have beaten the will to kill out of them.
It will not be over until they have nothing left but submission and change.

Going alone on theories which can very well be possibilities like this.
http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html we can assume they are in this to the death. Osama knew exactly what he started and its going almost as he planned. He didnt expect us to actually go after him.

There is no such thing as peace with these people, Only death because it brings them rewards.
You need to forget all about the justification B.S. and check exactly what it is we are facing. Its certain death. Its only a matter of who strikes first.

We're not 'losing', we're just trying to be nice and humane about it. We're still not even bombing Mosques yet.

If Islam seriously thinks it's capable of victory over America, they simply haven't shared war stories with Japan yet. The extremist movement doesn't have chance of destroying us. We're quite capable of realizing that this whole pussyfooting, sensitive war is because they are so weak and we are so strong we can afford these conventional, targeted operations and hope that's going to bring them out of the 14th century.


If we do get threatened and pissed off and we just don't give a shit anymore for Islam, then we nuke them, and survive.

But we're not even there yet. That's how strong America is.

 

[Annie]

We're not 'losing', we're just trying to be nice and humane about it. We're still not even bombing Mosques yet.

If Islam seriously thinks it's capable of victory over America, they simply haven't shared war stories with Japan yet. The extremist movement doesn't have chance of destroying us. We're quite capable of realizing that this whole pussyfooting, sensitive war is because they are so weak and we are so strong we can afford these conventional, targeted operations and hope that's going to bring them out of the 14th century.


If we do get threatened and pissed off and we just don't give a shit anymore for Islam, then we nuke them, and survive.

But we're not even there yet. That's how strong America is.

I wonder though, how strong is America? Some of us yes, but where is the majority? I am seeing mixed messages, and I'm American!

 

[Comrade]

I wonder though, how strong is America? Some of us yes, but where is the majority? I am seeing mixed messages, and I'm American!

We're far stronger than we have allowed ourselves to be.

We're limiting ourselves to street fighting against Al-Sadr. We intentionally restrict ourselves from destroying him or his base of operations. Civilian casualities are a great concern, and we respect these so called 'cease fires' and other third party negotiations which allow our enemy to rest and regoup. We've killed and captured several thousand at the cost of only a few America casualities.

THAT'S how strong we are.


We can also be aggressive than this, from simply taking out Al-Sadr up to and including the wholesale destruction of the entire middle east population, but we CHOOSE not to. We know we can end this but we are strong enough to do so without unnecessary bloodshed.


America is only so strong as we allow it to be, however. But if it's truly forced into a life and death struggle, we do what we need to do. Right now we don't need to.

 

[Annie]

We're far stronger than we have allowed ourselves to be.

We're limiting ourselves to street fighting against Al-Sadr. We intentionally restrict ourselves from destroying him or his base of operations. Civilian casualities are a great concern, and we respect these so called 'cease fires' and other third party negotiations which allow our enemy to rest and regoup. We've killed and captured several thousand at the cost of only a few America casualities.

THAT'S how strong we are.


We can also be aggressive than this, from simply taking out Al-Sadr up to and including the wholesale destruction of the entire middle east population, but we CHOOSE not to. We know we can end this but we are strong enough to do so without unnecessary bloodshed.


America is only so strong as we allow it to be, however. But if it's truly forced into a life and death struggle, we do what we need to do. Right now we don't need to.

Ok, I'll agree with that, when faced with a 'life or death' struggle. But why wait that long? Are we stupid? Damn, Sadr said, as DK earlier posted, that 'we have to accept his proposals.' D'oh! Not gonna happen, but we haven't made that clear.

 

[Comrade]

Ok, I'll agree with that, when faced with a 'life or death' struggle. But why wait that long? Are we stupid? Damn, Sadr said, as DK earlier posted, that 'we have to accept his proposals.' D'oh! Not gonna happen, but we haven't made that clear.

My bet is that under Bush's second term we'll see the gloves come off.

No nukes, still. But less pussyfooting around. And given any nuclear attack on the US, we'll probably see the true strength we're capable of and an end to this conflict in short order. We can do that quite brutally, if we choose.

 

[Annie]

My bet is that under Bush's second term we'll see the gloves come off.

No nukes, still. But less pussyfooting around. And given any nuclear attack on the US, we'll probably see the true strength we're capable of and an end to this conflict in short order. We can do that quite brutally, if we choose.

The realpolitik of meself, what if Kerry wins?

 

[Comrade]

The realpolitik of meself, what if Kerry wins?

Don't scare me, lol!


I look at how we're fighting now and compare it to a boxing match. We weigh 300 pounds and stand 7 feet tall. We're hitting above the belt, stopping at the bell, and listening to the referee. Meanwhile we have to keep rematching against these little scrappy fighters who are kicking us in the balls and playing dirty tricks and the referee doesn't give a shit.

Meanwhile we know we can simply wring the scrapper by the neck and end the fight, but the referee and the crowd will be angry unless we do this only when the fight really get's bloody.

In the next round, with Kerry in charge?

I visualize him with a big fluffy pillow to bat around the guy a bit, but mostly he's talking to the ref about whether the pillow is legal. While the crowd is passing a knife to our opponent.


How'd you like that?

 

[Annie]

Don't scare me, lol!


I look at how we're fighting now and compare it to a boxing match. We weigh 300 pounds and stand 7 feet tall. We're hitting above the belt, stopping at the bell, and listening to the referee. Meanwhile we have to keep rematching against these little scrappy fighters who are kicking us in the balls and playing dirty tricks and the referee doesn't give a shit.

Meanwhile we know we can simply wring the scrapper by the neck and end the fight, but the referee and the crowd will be angry unless we do this only when the fight really get's bloody.

In the next round, with Kerry in charge?

I visualize him with a big fluffy pillow to bat around the guy a bit, but mostly he's talking to the ref about whether the pillow is legal. While the crowd is passing a knife to our opponent.


How'd you like that?

In bed with cover over my head. Am I safe?

 

[Comrade]

In bed with cover over my head. Am I safe?

Keep that pillow handy!!! Have you ever had a pillow square in the noggin?


It sounds like, "shhhhhhhhhWOP!"

 

[Annie]

Keep that pillow handy!!! Have you ever had a pillow square in the noggin?


It sounds like, "shhhhhhhhhWOP!"

\\pfffttt I have my teddy! (no comments on snaps!)

 

[Golden Arms]

The truth is, most of the world owes us a debt for protecting them from either Nazi, or Communist tyranny. How easy it is to forget.

This statement is one of the biggest problems, imho. The "YOU OWE US" phenomenon. Reminds me of how Bush is always alluding to 9/11, like he actually gives two shits.

I'm so sick of politics.


Why can't we have a moderate president?

Someone intelligent, fair, strong.

Someone who doesnt thump the bible and strive for conservative values.

Someone who doesnt give all of our money to people who could work for it but chose not to, because welfare is easier than sweating.

Bah.

 

[Annie]

This statement is one of the biggest problems, imho. The "YOU OWE US" phenomenon. Reminds me of how Bush is always alluding to 9/11, like is actually gives two shits.

I'm so sick of politics.


Why can't we have a moderate president?

Someone intelligent, fair, strong.

Someone who doesnt thump the bible and strive for conservative values.

Someone who doesnt give all of our money to people who could work for it but chose not to, because welfare is easier than sweating.

Bah.

Ya know what? We have a moderate president. He has called Islam an religion of peace. LOL. He has increased spending across the spectrum on the domestic front. WTFare you hoping for?

 

[wade]

The realpolitik of meself, what if Kerry wins?

Get used to it, cause Kerry is going to win this election.

In the end, Americans vote their pocket books, and the economy stinks. By every past pre-election measurement mechanism, Kerry has a nearly insurmountable lead right now in all the areas that count.

-------------

As for how to fight the war on terror, first we have to understand our enemies, which we do not. As long as we are willing to spend $100,000 to counter every $1 they spend, they will keep throwing bodies at us. Life is cheap in the middle-east. They consider the high value we place on life a weakness.

As of this moment, the cost of the War in Iraq is: $128,300,428,000.

Al-Queda has spent a few million on its war on the USA. At this ratio, they win by loosing. They do not care how many Arab lives are lost, as long as their culture in general remains secure, they will continue and intensify this war. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was pure foolisness, history will bear this out.

The whole concept that the Islamics are going to understand and appreciate democracy is ludicrous. THEY DON'T THINK THAT WAY! To them, the Koran defines the role of government and the role of the individual in Islam, and there is no need or place for a defined secular set of rules for what is already defined by God. The Arabs believe we are slaves to our materialism, and have lost touch with God, and are therefore evil, and our ways are evil. So there is no way, in the long run, they are going to accept western style democracy. One need only read the Koran to see this is true, espeically about the last 1/3rd of it. For these reasons, the War on Terror, and specifically the war in Iraq, is nearly impossible to "win" under the current strategy.

What we need to do is to find cost-effective ways to deal with the terrorists. This is why I have suggested neutron bombs, because they are cheap and effective. Alternatively, we could develop bio-genetic weapons that would effect mostly only Arabs (and probably also a lot of jews), but that is a genie that might get out of control once released, so I don't think we are going to go that route.

Right now, neutron bombs are the only really good solution, because they are a counter to the asymetry we face when trying to fight conventional warfare against an enemy that has little of collateral value to be destroyed, and places a low value on individual life. Conventional bombs just cost too much and are insufficent because they do not instill sufficient terror and helplessness upon the enemy.

To win this war, we need to convince the Arabs that we will destroy their culture if we are pressed to do so. Conventional warfare is never going to achieve this goal.

We need to stop thinking we can "fix" the Arab culture, we cannot. We simply need to cut the head off the enemy whenever they become a threat. This is why I think we should not have invaded Iraq, but instead simply neutron bombed Saddam and the Baath party leadership w/o specific warning. Likewise, this is how we should deal with other nations which pose terrorist or WMD threats in the future. Once we have cut off the head, we should let the indiginous population determine how they shall behave thereafter, and if necessary, we can always chop off thier head again if they do not learn.

If Moqtada Al Sadr is successful, and the Shi'ites (internationally) rise up against us in a significant way, we should evacuate Najaf and then hit the Imam Ali Mosque with a tactical nuke sufficiently large and intense to turn it to a mound of glass. Such an action would state clearly to the entire Islamic world that they do have something to loose; their culture. Only by destroying the roots of their culture can we force them to stop their Jihad agains the west. They are trying to destroy our culture, and they need to see that their culture is also at stake, something they don't believe is the case at this point.

The Islamics do not understand things in terms of Arab lives lost, but they do understand symbolic statements on a grand scale. We need to make such a statement, and we need to make it soon.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Get used to it, cause Kerry is going to win this election.

In the end, Americans vote their pocket books, and the economy stinks. By every past pre-election measurement mechanism, Kerry has a nearly insurmountable lead right now in all the areas that count.

Imagine Bush wins... everytime you post 'facts' like this again, which you seem to do so repetitively, well, here is the link where you sound crazy as hell, and wrong, too.

Your the guy with the four ID's logged into the board, yes? And the other three name are what?

Yes, you should tell us all right now. I'm not fucking around.

As for how to fight the war on terror, first we have to understand our enemies, which we do not. As long as we are willing to spend $100,000 to counter every $1 they spend, they will keep throwing bodies at us. Life is cheap in the middle-east. They consider the high value we place on life a weakness.

As of this moment, the cost of the War in Iraq is: $128,300,428,000.

Al-Queda has spent a few million on its war on the USA. At this ratio, they win by loosing. They do not care how many Arab lives are lost, as long as their culture in general remains secure, they will continue and intensify this war. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was pure foolisness, history will bear this out.

The whole concept that the Islamics are going to understand and appreciate democracy is ludicrous. THEY DON'T THINK THAT WAY! To them, the Koran defines the role of government and the role of the individual in Islam, and there is no need or place for a defined secular set of rules for what is already defined by God. The Arabs believe we are slaves to our materialism, and have lost touch with God, and are therefore evil, and our ways are evil. So there is no way, in the long run, they are going to accept western style democracy. One need only read the Koran to see this is true, espeically about the last 1/3rd of it. For these reasons, the War on Terror, and specifically the war in Iraq, is nearly impossible to "win" under the current strategy.

Very damn good points. But America is massively strong, we'll win this if we continue to try, even by being real nice about winning it.

What we need to do is to find cost-effective ways to deal with the terrorists. This is why I have suggested neutron bombs, because they are cheap and effective. Alternatively, we could develop bio-genetic weapons that would effect mostly only Arabs (and probably also a lot of jews), but that is a genie that might get out of control once released, so I don't think we are going to go that route.

Yikes!

We're not desperate or that weak. We'll win and we'll do it without mass murder.

Right now, neutron bombs are the only really good solution, because they are a counter to the asymetry we face when trying to fight conventional warfare against an enemy that has little of collateral value to be destroyed, and places a low value on individual life. Conventional bombs just cost too much and are insufficent because they do not instill sufficient terror and helplessness upon the enemy.

I'm not saying it won't happen, and hell, maybe it will come to that. But it's not about being cost effective, it's about being the USA, which mean we're not only powerfull but just and humane. Something new in the world for the first time in all of human history.

To win this war, we need to convince the Arabs that we will destroy their culture if we are pressed to do so. Conventional warfare is never going to achieve this goal.

Of course it would. Firebombing was always more effective than nuclear attacks. We were always there for stable oil supply, and now for many other reasons. But radioactive oil is NO GOOD. We've obviously got conventional means far more effective that a bomb, to simply kill all Arabs. We don't need to do that, nor should we want to.

We need to stop thinking we can "fix" the Arab culture, we cannot.

Of course we can.

We simply need to cut the head off the enemy whenever they become a threat. This is why I think we should not have invaded Iraq, but instead simply neutron bombed Saddam and the Baath party leadership w/o specific warning. Likewise, this is how we should deal with other nations which pose terrorist or WMD threats in the future. Once we have cut off the head, we should let the indiginous population determine how they shall behave thereafter, and if necessary, we can always chop off thier head again if they do not learn.

It hasn't come to that, but I'm not saying it never will. We're powerfull enough to do this the right way, for now.

If Moqtada Al Sadr is successful, and the Shi'ites rise up against us in a significant way, we should evacuate Najaf and then hit the Imam Ali Mosque with a tactical nuke sufficiently large and intense to turn it to a mound of glass. Such an action would state clearly to the entire Islamic world that they do have something to loose; their culture. Only by destroying the roots of their culture can we force them to stop their Jihad agains the west. They are trying to destroy our culture, and they need to see that their culture is also at stake, something they don't believe is the case at this point.

Too soon.

The Islamics do not understand things in terms of Arab lives lost, but they do understand symbolic statements on a grand scale. We need to make such a statement, and we need to make it soon.
Wade.

Not as long as we make progress under less murderous means. But hold that thought. Keep it out there for a possible future when such consideration may be the only way to maintain our own survival.

But also know we are far too strong to have to resort to such brutal tactics yet. Because we are particularly strong in effecting change through less murderous tactics.

 

[wade]

Imagine Bush wins... everytime you post 'facts' like this again, which you seem to do so repetitively, well, here is the link where you sound crazy as hell, and wrong, too.

Your the guy with the four ID's logged into the board, yes? And the other three name are what?

Yes, you should tell us all right now. I'm not fucking around.

No, I have only one ID on this board, the one you see. There are 3 others who use this computer at times, but none of them access this board.

The fact is the economy is in horrible shape. No one is really denying this. Top financial experts are bearish on America for at least the next several years! The jobs levels are bad, and the figures are skewed by the method of measurement to look better than they are (most who have been unemployed for more than 6 months are not considered unemployed). In the private sector jobs have been lost, not gained, over the last year. Not only that, but things are worse than the figures show because high paying skilled labor jobs with quality benifit packages are being replaced with low paying retail service jobs with almost no benifts. And all the new job creation in the last year has been in the public sector. For the first time since WWII, the skilled and educated are having just as hard a time finding work as the unskilled and poorly educated. The whole "re-educate and retrain" theory is being proven wrong.

Very damn good points. But America is massively strong, we'll win this if we continue to try, even by being real nice about winning it.

Yikes!

We're not desperate or that weak. We'll win and we'll do it without mass murder.

In the end, it may come to genocide. Every year that goes by the chances that the enemy will gain WMD's grows. A hybrid strain of influenza or smallpox would kill millions. If at the same time the Islamic world appears to have unified behind the terrorists, we will be fighting a war of anihilation. I agree, we need to stop things from getting to that point, but to deny it may come to that point if we do not succeed and succeed quickly is just going to make it inevitable.

I'm not saying it won't happen, and hell, maybe it will come to that. But it's not about being cost effective, it's about being the USA, which mean we're not only powerfull but just and humane. Something new in the world for the first time in all of human history.

Unfortunately, we have not always been "just and humane" in our policies and actions. This is one of the reasons why we have such a hard time selling our benevolence in the rest of the world. Their are too many instances where we have let self-interest rule our actions. Vietnam, Chile, El-Salvador, the whole foriegn surgar investments fiasco (which bankrupted many 3rd world nations), the World Bank and World Court behavior in general... all these things make us look bad when trying to flash the big S on our shirts.

And it is about being cost-effective. To deny this only works if the war is short lived. This is what cause us to back out of Veitnam, the banks and financial intrests, which supported the VN conflict at the beginning in the hopes of developing new markets in the region, withdrew their support, the public protest was only a minor factor in comparison. We are in this war for the long-haul, or we will surely loose. They will win if they can simply bleed our economy dry, which is their stated plan and always was.

Of course it would. Firebombing was always more effective than nuclear attacks. We were always there for stable oil supply, and now for many other reasons. But radioactive oil is NO GOOD. We've obviously got conventional means far more effective that a bomb, to simply kill all Arabs. We don't need to do that, nor should we want to.

Most modern nukes can be made to be extremely clean, if they are dirty it is because they are designed to be. Neutron bombs do not create fallout, they bombard the target with neutrinos as the primary effect. They do create a small area of significant destruction, but it is on the order of perhaps 10 modern 2,000 lbs bombs laid down in an optimal pattern.

Firebombing was only more effective than nuking in WWII because the nukes were so new. The Japanese were willing to bear fire-bombing, but 2 nukes convinced them to capitulate in 2 weeks. So the contention that fire-bombing was more effective is just flat wrong.

We need to stop thinking we can "fix" the Arab culture, we cannot.

Of course we can.

Only by destroying it. I suggest you read the Koran and the diatribe of the Islamic clerics. We keep thinking they think like we do, they don't, and they won't unless they put our ideas in front of their own, which is not going to happen.

It hasn't come to that, but I'm not saying it never will. We're powerfull enough to do this the right way, for now.

I fear their resolve is stronger than ours. We are not willing to see a degredation of our way of life to combat their aims, which is what we would have to endure to beat them using conventional means. Look at what is happening - already moral amoungst our troops is wavering.

Not as long as we make progress under less murderous means. But hold that thought. Keep it out there for a possible future when such consideration may be the only way to maintain our own survival.

But also know we are far too strong to have to resort to such brutal tactics yet. Because we are particularly strong in effecting change through less murderous tactics.

I would bet that using such tactics would result in less Arab deaths. I'm not talking 10 mt bombs here, I'm talking bombs with an area of effect of perhaps a few city blocks, carefully aimed to destroy the enemies leadership, which have minimal environmental consequences and can be focused to minimize loss of innocent lives.

Had we used such a tactic against Saddam and the Baath party, we could even have denied doing it. Who could prove otherwise?

Wade.