How to win the War on Terrorism

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The USA is fighting an all out war on terror factions.

Only by direct action can terror be stopped, by a combination of heavy intelligence work, intense pressure on governments that allow terror cells to move about freely, and direct confrontation when said governments refuse to stop terror.

Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop Pakistan from supporting terrorists in Kashmir. No.

Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop the Tamil Tigers, which the US has declared a terrorist organization, in Sri Lanka. No.

Is the US fighting an all-out war against terrorist in Columbia. No

And the list goes on and on.

The US is fighting a limited war against one group of terrorists.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Arrian
ranskaldan,

I just want to point one little thing out, for the hell of it. Whenever the US has tried to "pick the lesser of two evils" we've been condemned for it. Our leaders figured the Shah of Iran, for instance, was the lesser of two evils (the other, greater evil being Soviet influence or the fundies who eventually took over anyway). The problem with accepting the "lesser of two evils" is that historical hindsight may show that you picked the wrong "evil."

Well firstly, while picking the lesser of two evils is pretty evil, picking the greater of two evils is more evil, and you'll get condemed even more for it.

As for picking the lesser evil that turns out to be the greater evil, that's because of poor judgment, not bad reasoning. There's nothing wrong with the principle of "picking the lesser of two evils" itself.

I think what Chris is trying to say is that we ought to stop trying to pick between evils. I'm not sure where we should draw the line, but conceptually I agree with him. I really wish we (and the rest of the Western world) would stop whoring ourselves to China because we want to sell them stuff (and yes, Che, that's my democratic/human rights morality, not my capitalist morality talking). I wish we'd stop pumping money and arms to ME dictators in exchange for "stability" so we can have our oil. I wish we had a foreign policy that was clear, consistent and principled.

You see, now you're picking the greater of two evils. Isolating regimes and closing up countries - or talking to regimes and opening up countries? Both are evil in some way, but the second one is less evil. That's basically my point - picking the lesser evil because it's more evil to pick the greater evil.

Besides, from a personal point of view - I'm fervently against closing down China and isolating it. If so then the government will give up trying to modernize and go back to the Maoist days, and everyone will become dirt poor once again. Considering that things in China has been going really well in the past two decades, it will be absolutely disgusting if the US took a more hostile stance. It's inhumane and it's immoral.

That probably applies to the Arab countries as well, though I don't know about their national economic conditions.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's much smarter than lets smack them and make them madder at us so they can kill us again.

Frankly, if there are any other terracts in the US by Arabs, we deserve them. We haven't changed anything and just became the same bullies we were before.

Hey everybody, Imran is volunteering to be our own little Apolyton martyr!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sikander
Hey everybody, Imran is volunteering to be our own little Apolyton martyr!

What do we offer our martrys in Apolyton paradise?

[Roland]

Kittens ?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Sikander


Hey everybody, Imran is volunteering to be our own little Apolyton martyr!

Hmmm, Sikander, from what I saw he didnt volunteer to be a martyr. He just critisised.

Is that one and the same?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Kittens ?

Kittens are evil. I doubt that they would be in paradise.

[ranskaldan]

Stop picking on Imran.

He has plenty of good points (although I'd say the "you deserve to die in terrorist acts" is somewhat overboard).

Try to listen, at least.

[Chris 62]

Why are you obsessed with me?

I'll never understand why you have this obsession, but I don't like you, and I don't care about your opinion, so stop quoting me.
All it does is lead me to embarrising you again, like now for instance.

Originally posted by Tingkai
Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop Pakistan from supporting terrorists in Kashmir. No.

Didn't Bush make it clear we would fight one war at a time, or did you just ignore that part?
And it's not Pakistan, it's El Qeada.

Is the US fighting an all-out war to stop the Tamil Tigers, which the US has declared a terrorist organization, in Sri Lanka. No.

See above.

Is the US fighting an all-out war against terrorist in Columbia. No

See above.

And the list goes on and on.

I'm amazed so much stupidity can be cramed into a single post, yet you always manage it.

The US is fighting a limited war against one group of terrorists.

All out, and to the end, one front at a time.
Bush made this clear from the start.
You don't believe him, and then you say we are not?
There is deffinatly something very wrong with you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Stop picking on Imran.

When he stops making a right arse of himself with the "You all deserve to die!" rhetoric, he won't make such a tempting target.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point still stands. Your exagerations withstanding.

... and yet military men that say we deserve to be attacked if we don't boost defense spending aren't critiqued by you . Could it be you don't want to see what is obvious?

[Roland]

"All out, and to the end, one front at a time.
Bush made this clear from the start. "

Well "clear" is an exaggeration. So we have the first eternal war going on.... ?

I'd be very surprised to see the US acting against terrorist organisation that do not operate against US interests or even operate in line with US interests. That would be a level of consistency far beyond the reach of this administration.

And btw, do you really think the Pakistani government is not aiding the terrorists in Kashmir ?

[DinoDoc]

Imran: According to your "logic," the people who died on 9/11 desrved thier fate due to the fact that no signifigant change were made in US foreign policy after the previous attack on the WTC and other al Qaeda attacks.

... and yet military men that say we deserve to be attacked if we don't boost defense spending aren't critiqued by you .

I think that you assume to much, Imran.

[Chris 62]

No, I don't, but the poster who posted that is not someone I care to bother with, and annoying him was the primary purpose of saying that.

Bush said terror that attack the US, as I recall, not terror in general, and he was clear it might take many years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to your "logic," the people who died on 9/11 desrved thier fate due to the fact that no signifigant change were made in US foreign policy after the previous attack on the WTC and other al Qaeda attacks.

Not the people, really, as much as the government. 'We' deserve it doesn't specifically mean Americans who die, it means our government and our society.

It'd be like a bully who beats up the same kid. And then one day, one of his big friends, cheap shots him and knocks him out. We might have some sympathy. But fi the bully continues to do what he has done before, the next time he gets clocked, we'd most likely say he deserved it (some would even say he deserved it the first time).