Understanding terrorism

[Urbane Guerrilla]

TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well. What the military force we apply does do is to remove the obstacle to democracy a tyrannical regime presents, by pulverizing the regime, or in Iraq's case, less pulverizing than sublimating: it evaporated in front of us.

While Vietnam may not at this time have democracy, we can take comfort in that it really doesn't have Communism either, big C or small, except as a sort of state religion you're supposed to believe in if you want a job in government. On the streets it's capitalism and small businesses.

Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?

Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich; I know your sort. Handwaving about a waste of your time is ridiculous, and a rationalization for the moral cowardice you daily offend with. Phooey! You will sidestep, dance, expostulate, obfuscate, and evade. What you won't do is fight terrorism nor tyranny -- which constitute threats to the Constitution and the several States to which we've both sworn. Too much a waste of your precious, inviolable time. Wow.

This is why my manner indicates contempt. You can't back up the convictions your post says you hold, name or no name. If you think my book is crayon (not that you believe even that), you think terribly poorly, which is par for the antiwar types in here. They may satisfy themselves with their "reasons" to undermine and fail at this war on tyranny -- but their reasons don't satisfy me.

The recruiting stations stop taking them at thirty-nine, and I've got more military time and decorations than you do anyway, as you admit. So Phooey again; your bleatings don't impress.

You've done a fine job of making yourself the issue for a couple of posts, but this is an end to it. We now return to the matter of terrorism, and its proper excision.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Marichiko, you just don't want to understand that Slang apparently is not alone in certain opinions. If you're going to make jokes, use smilier smilies or I'm likely to assume you're being as straightfaced as I am.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Marichiko, you just don't want to understand that Slang apparently is not alone in certain opinions. If you're going to make jokes, use smilier smilies or I'm likely to assume you're being as straightfaced as I am.

Now there is a terrifying thought, indeed. Hopefully, they won't be letting you out any time too soon, and I refuse to smile when I write this.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

While Vietnam may not at this time have democracy, we can take comfort in that it really doesn't have Communism either, big C or small, except as a sort of state religion you're supposed to believe in if you want a job in government. On the streets it's capitalism and small businesses.

WE who, white boy? I sit at The Wall in DC, trace my fingers on certain names etched in stone, never to hear that man's voice again, never to see his smile, and I am to take comfort in the thought that some street vendor in Saigon is selling wrist watches made in China? Sorry, pal. The soldiers who gave their lives deserve better than that cheap plastic watch sold in the name of the state religion of ANYTHING, be it communism, Mohammed, or Jesus. Nope, thats not what my Dad and my friends fought for (and some died for) during the Tet Offensive, or any other encounter in that miserable, sorry excuse of a waste of American lives. How dare you make so light of their sacrifices?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher?

Excellent question. Go to the head of the class! Where is Bin Laden? Iraq? BBBZZZZZT! WRONG! Of what family is Bin Laden from? Saddam's? Nope, wrong again. Go to the back of the class, after all. WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER BIN LADEN? HELLO? AS someone who was involved in military intelligence and covert ops, aren't you the slightest bit puzzled over what the hell we are doing in Iraq? Give me a break, if we were going to invade ANY country in retribution for 9/11, would it not be Saudi Arabia? Is not Bin Laden a member of the House of Saud? When is the last time the Saudi's had a democratic election to pick out their king, since you are so worried about democracy, hmmmm? Its as if after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we decided to declare war on New Zealand. What the hell? Close enough!

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This is why my manner indicates contempt. You can't back up the convictions your post says you hold, name or no name. If you think my book is crayon (not that you believe even that), you think terribly poorly, which is par for the antiwar types in here. They may satisfy themselves with their "reasons" to undermine and fail at this war on tyranny -- but their reasons don't satisfy me.

Took the very words out of my mouth. You cannot back up your convictions. You advocate a generalized blood bath which does nothing to bring to justice the perp behind 9/11, you tell us Vietnam was a worthy sacrifice of American lives because some street vendor over there gets to sell a couple of bannana's, and you complain of failing "at this war on tyranny." NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Try going after the tyrants for a change, how about? Granted, Saddam was a tyrant, but the fucking world is chock full of tyrants! The US neither can nor should go out to war against all of them. The proper function of the military in a DEMOCRACY is to defend the country's own borders. Did the Iraqi's send the planes into those towers? Hello? NO! WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER THE TYRANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTACKING OUR COUNTRY??????????????????????

I'm waiting, Mr. Democracy, and why the hell don't you put your body where your mouth is and go fight some Iraqi "insurgents," since you are so god damn gung ho about killing prople? Go kill 'em already, why are you wasting your time here?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well.

The US government demands that Iraq have their constitution written and approved by 15 August. That sounds exactly like forcing a government down their throats. Furthermore, the US government has put restrictions on what can and cannot be in that constitution.

Meanwhile, history demonstrates that when democracy is pushed down their throats, bad things like Civil War occur. Brent Scowcroft (a closest friend of George Sr) was discussing this as a real possibility maybe one year ago. Now reporters in the 'field' are reporting civil war as a more likely consideration with each month.

The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani is recently been quoted saying, "the Kurdish people have the right to secede.''

Meanwhile, one of the underlying themes from the founding members of "Project for a New American Century" was to fix the Middle East and Central Asia; to impose democratic structures on these nations. Those are underlying concepts behind pre-emption. We will fix these people because they cannot fix themselves. Stable democratic governments do not occur when those governments are unilaterally imposed by an exterior force. We even tried to do that in Vietnam. All we ended up with was the most corrupt government in the region. Furthermore, we ended up destabilizing governments in adjacent nations.

Liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. The people must sweat and bleed to eventually 'earn' their own government. If democracy is so good, then democracy will occur naturally. But a democracy imposed on a nation just will not work. George Jr is trying to impose democracy upon Iraq. America has even issued deadlines. Next on the list: Iran.

One of the underlying principles behind "Project for a New American Century" is pre-emption - to unilaterally force a change upon them. In fact, many of the most right wing members of this group have openly called for imposing democracatic institutions on these nations.

America is trying to impose democracy, in part, because the George Jr administration was surprised that democracy did not happen in the first seven months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. The George Jr administration's own principles just assumed democracy would spring up when the people were liberated. They failed to learn the lessons of history. Those people must take the first steps to liberate themselves. In Iraq, they did not. America is forcing changes upon them - complete with deadlines.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

1) a 12 week "officer candidate school" is all that separates the enlisted from the officers in many cases when you acknowledge that a very high percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's and many have advanced degrees.

Could you define "very high percentage", my bullshit detector is spazing?

[tw]

Meanwhile, to understand terrorism, then appreciate how the administration may be changing its tune - having learned that the "Mission Accomplished" war is winable ... just like Vietnam. This from Billy Kristol, one of the 40 founders (including Rumsfeld) of "Project for a New American Century":

Bush v. Rumsfeld
Until a few months ago, Bush administration officials refused to speculate on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. They criticized those who did talk about withdrawing, arguing that such talk would encourage the terrorists, discourage our friends, and make it harder to win over waverers who wanted to be assured that we would be there to help. The administration's line was simply that we were going to stay the course in Iraq, do what it takes, and win.

The president still tends to say this. But not Defense Department civilian officials, who have recently been willing to indicate a desire to get out, and sooner rather than later. After all, Rumsfeld has said, insurgencies allegedly take a decade or so to defeat. What's more, our presence gives those darned Iraqi allies of ours excuses not to step up to the plate. So let's get a government elected under the new Iraqi constitution, and accelerate our plans to get the troops home. As Rumsfeld said Thursday, "once Iraq is safely in the hands of the Iraqi people and a government that they elect under a new constitution that they are now fashioning, and which should be completed by August 15, our troops will be able to, as the capability of the Iraqi security forces evolve, pass over responsibility to them and then come home." The key "metric" is finding enough Iraqis to whom we can turn over the responsibility for fighting--not defeating the terrorists.

As Newsweek reported last week: "Now the conditions for U.S. withdrawal no longer include a defeated insurgency, Pentagon sources say. The new administration mantra is that the insurgency can be beaten only politically, by the success of Iraq's new government. Indeed, Washington is now less concerned about the insurgents than the unwillingness of Iraq's politicians to make compromises for the sake of national unity. Pentagon planners want to send a spine-stiffening message: the Americans won't be there forever."

But not-so-well-hidden under the pseudo-tough talk of "spine-stiffening" is the inescapable whiff of weakness and defeatism. Rumsfeld either doesn't believe we can win, or doesn't think we can maintain political support for staying, or doesn't believe winning is worth the cost. So we're getting out, under cover of talking about how "political progress is necessary to defeat the insurgency."

[lookout123]

Bruce i haven't seen a report in about a year but i will look around and see if i can dig one up, when i get a chance.

by "very high percentage" i don't mean 90% or anything close. keep in mind that a large number of enlisted are only 1-3 years out of high school. i should have been more specific in my statement, because i was referring to the NCO's and career enlisted. for instance, I am at the base for duty right now. as i look around this unit (we are a little top heavy in my area) i see 3 LT Col's 1 has a Doctorate, 1 a master's, 1 a bachelors. there is 1 major with a bachelor's, 1 captain with a master's. there are 12 enlisted on the floor right now. 3 have master's degrees, (1 working on his doctorate), 3 with bachelor's, (one just entering law school), and 2 with Associate's. that means that half of the enlisted in this area alone have higher than the minimum requirements for a commission - so the only thing that separates them officers is the 12 week course.

on further thought, one of the E-6's will retire as a Major. he gave up his commission due to time constraints. in the last 12 months two of us have been offered the opportunity for commissioning, but declined for personal reasons - in my case i simply can't leave my business to go to a school.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?

Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich;

So you are now floating the notions that:

1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?

For someone whose job it was to collect intelligence, you seem to have picked up a few pieces of which %99.9999999999 of the rest of the world is ignorant. Did you receive these on a special radio in your bomb shelter or did the tin foil hat slip one day and let them in?

I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

keep in mind that a large number of enlisted are only 1-3 years out of high school.

And a large number of enlisted haven't seen a college for the sand...or mud...or snow.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And a large number of enlisted haven't seen a college for the sand...or mud...or snow.

When I was younger I met a kid at Fort Dix who was 17. He said his recruiter told him he could get his diploma while in the Army. I don't know if they had regular classes or were just helping him towards a GED.

You are talking about your Reserve unit, I presume, Lookout. Major difference between the educational attainments of the Reserves versus regular career military. Bruce is right about the snow and the sand getting between the pages of those college text books. My Mohican Indian friend who fought in Desert Storm was lured into the military by the promise of a college diploma. Never happened. He became disabled in the First Gulf War and his disability precludes him attending college now. Anyhow, it wasn't the rank and file officers who got us into this mess. It was the politicians in case no one has noticed.

[Trilby]

..I'd like to teach the world to chill and something Coca-Cola....

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

When I was younger I met a kid at Fort Dix who was 17. He said his recruiter told him he could get his diploma while in the Army. I don't know if they had regular classes or were just helping him towards a GED.

My Dad got his GED while he was in the Marines. I think that was pretty common years ago.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So you are now floating the notions that:

1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?

1) No. The tyrants I speak of are al-Qaeda and their ilk, who behave most tyrannously to not only Christendom, but about everyone else, to judge from al-Zarqawi's pronunciamentos telling Muslims to avoid democracy. Terrorist attacks are tyrannical methods, are they not? And opposing democratization of the social order means support for tyrannical governance instead, does it not?

I do apologize for being a little unclear as to which particular tyrants I was assailing. (It's still very important that you've never done anything of the kind yoursel owing to your appallingly limited conception of liberty. News flash, Richie: liberty is not and shall not be the exclusive property of the United States.)

2) No again. Isn't it astonishing how many of the soft-on-tyranny sort of Americans believe that some other Americans believe Saddam launched it? Well, the left wouldn't be so recognizable if it weren't for its ill-founded ideas. Personally, I couldn't name one single American who believes Saddam had anything more to do with 9/11 than Hitler had to do with Pearl Harbor. And I couldn't name a single American who did think that way that I couldn't show him that he was mistaken.

Fortunately for the nation, you guys are gullible enough to think we're about as smart as you are -- it keeps you wasting your efforts to undermine the rest of us. You instead spend your time in futilities, and lose elections -- repeatedly.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.

Sooo... you're in denial about the idea that widebody jetliners into buildings might pose a danger to the Republic that is both clear as could be and as present as the rubble pile left in downtown Manhattan. Sounds about like what I ought to expect from the likes of you, Rich.

Fighting against tyranny is what sane people do, Rich. You, in what appears to be some of the most grossly misplaced egotism to be found anywhere on the 'Net, aren't fighting the tyranny. Son: you don't qualify to fight in the next metaphorical foxhole from me.