Get the jumper cables, electrodes, bamboo shoots and water board ready

This enemy has no hearts and minds. That's why the current tactics aren't working.

 

The radicals don't give a fuck, you're right.

But there is the rest of the Arabic world to think about. All those "ordinary Muslims" that people like to persecute.

 

The rest of the Arabic world is too busy burning effigies of the Pope to care about stopping the radicals.

 

Is there anything the "Muslim street" doesn't get angry about? Oh yeah, atrocities by other Muslims.

 

Lyman's Comparative Relgions class is now in session.

 

Do you not admit that Lymans point is valid?

I am in idiot in these things. I freely admit that. And I am a bit wishy washy about the torture thing. I do want to be part of a society that is morally better than others...I do. And this plan is wrong, wrong, wrong.

That said, (and here is the "but" someone mentioned earlier in the thread) where is the "rest of the muslim community's" anger? Why isn't the muslim community doing everything it can to find the people that are causing the trouble? Certainly, not every muslim is a terrorist, most are not.

But if the Pope yesterday had said that American Epicopalians were evil, not one catholic church would be on fire today. Not one. Because americans ARE better than that.

There was an early episode of the West Wing where the president wanted to blow up a bunch of stuff in the middle east and was told a "proportional response" would be better. He related an anecdote about how Roman citizens could go almost anywhere free from fear of harm, simply by saying "I am a Roman". So great was the worry in the rest of the world about how Rome would respond to an attack on it's citizenry. I am aware that later in the episode, the proportional response is proven to be correct, one of the reasons being that "americans don't act that way". I am also aware that I have used an entertainment program to make my point, which is:

I am not sure that a "get what you give" policy is bad. For the most part, americans are more than willing to live and let live. I will honestly admit that I wasn't all that concerned with what was going on in the middle east or Afghanistan prior to 9-11. They were welcome to fight their own battles over whatever they wanted as far as I was concerned.

But then they brought it here.

And while I think any war is a bad idea (what's wrong with talking to figure things out...even if it takes years)...there are accepted ways in which to fight a war. Our enemies do not use them, and it becomes much, much harder to fight them because of that.

So the way we fight them has to change. It has to.

I do not know what that change should entail, there are others on this board who are far more eloquent expressing their thoughts than I. And I am not trying to become part of a pissing contest. This is just my two cents.

But to beat an enemy, any enemy, you may have to adjust the way you fight to the way they fight.

If the british had been able to do that instead of marching down roads in their bright red coats, en masse,so that the minutemen could jump out from behind walls and drop down out of trees to attack them, 4 o'clock might still be tea time in these united states.

 

You raise valid points, Dirk.

The problem is that we are not in a traditional "war" with a traditional "enemy." It's not just about the "way we fight them." Because what are we really fighting? Who are we really fighting?

A War On Terrorism is a never-ending war. Terrorism will never go away. You can't rid the world of terrorism -- you can't rid the world of hate. All you can do is try to give people reasons not to hate. And punish those who do. But you can't punish The Entire Muslim World. Not when you don't have the support of the rest of the world, not when you're trying to do it virtually alone (coalition be damned.) That's why we're stuck in a quagmire -- and why we always will be, unless we change more than just "the way we fight them." That's why Bush was right when he said at the beginning that this was not just an American fight, it was the world's fight. It is. But we have to be part of that world, not pull away from it.

In a war, as we are used to war, there is a goal in sight and a clearly defined result of "success." But what is "success" in this case? Killing all Muslims? No, can't do that. Besides, hate breeds more hate. ... Make every country is a democracy? No, that's unrealistic. ... Everybody loves us? That's just dumb.

The "way we fight them" has to be about more military strategy. This is a conceptual war. Our CONCEPTS have to change -- not just our tactics.

We're not fighting a Vietnam war here. We're fighting something totally different -- and that fight takes a level of sophistication that we're not showing right now.

 

Two good posts.

But how do we make the Muslim world hate us less, when it's pretty obvious that it hates pretty much everyone?

 

Buck is one of the eloquent I referenced earlier.

But I am not sure that we can figure out how to make the muslims that hate us...hate us less.

Because the reson that they hate us (or what I percieve to be the reason), is that we are not like them.

It is stupid, to expect everyone to be part of a democracy. Isn't it just as stupid for the muslims that believe that way to think they can convert everyone, or kill those they can't?

Buck, I can't see an answer. But I am certain that we can not wait for them to show up again in our part of the world, or bombing our military bases or military ships, without doing everything we can to ensure the safety of americans, both here and abroad.

There are times I wish we could be isolationist, I really do. Tell the world, "Hey, we'll take care of us, you take care of you". But I know we can't.

So I dunno...Sigh

 

Whether they are in Washington or not, it's going to take someone smarter than me to figure it out. That's for sure.

But I hope that when (notice I said when, not if) we're attacked again we don't wonder why we didn't do more to stop it.

 

great posts Dirk....we have very similar opinions on the subject.

 

Hey dog, since you started this thread, what's your definition of torture?