It's True: Iraq is a quagmire

[Blotan Hunka]

Im all for "understanding them" if it helps to capture or kill more of them.

 

[Big Don]

I never claimed terrorists were less than human. That their behavior is inhumane is indisputable, there is no context in which mass murder by explosive clothing is sane or humane.

 

[Big Don]

Im all for "understanding them" if it helps to capture or kill more of them.

That they want to kill you, just to see you dead should be enough of an understanding.

 

[CoryKS]

I don't care if people see them as human or non-human, as long as it doesn't interfere with making them ex-human.

 

[michaeledward]

Really? You think we should just ignore the crazies and they'll go away, Pollyanna?
We don't need to understand the "reasoning" of terrorists. There is only one thing we need to know about terrorists:How to kill them.
Did California need to know why Manson was insane before they locked his crazy *** up? NO, just knowing he was dangerously insane was enough to merit removing him from society.

I will point out that Osama bin Laden is not now, nor ever was in Iraq.

 

[michaeledward]

I never claimed terrorists were less than human. That their behavior is inhumane is indisputable, there is no context in which mass murder by explosive clothing is sane or humane.

I wonder if "mass murder" by pilotless aircraft or satellite guided bomb is somehow humane or sane.

 

[Big Don]

I will point out that Osama bin Laden is not now, nor ever was in Iraq.

I will point out that no one ever claimed he was. Only that terrorists from the same group (Al Qaeda) are.

 

[Big Don]

I wonder if "mass murder" by pilotless aircraft or satellite guided bomb is somehow humane or sane.

If you don't believe in using force in self defense, you may be wasting time in martial arts...

 

[JBrainard]

I don't care if people see them as human or non-human, as long as it doesn't interfere with making them ex-human.

It does interfere with making them ex-human. If you see them as a bunch of nutcases, you are underestimating them. Hmm... maybe Bin-Laden isn't crazy at all. Maybe he understands the Muslim world more than we do. Maybe he's pretty damn smart. Maybe that's why we haven't captured him yet? If he were a raving lunatic, the war on terror would be over by now, would it not?

 

[michaeledward]

I will point out that no one ever claimed he was. Only that terrorists from the same group (Al Qaeda) are.

I will point out that there were no terrorists in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was governing the State.

I will point out that we are spending three billion dollars a week in Iraq.

I will point out that the President of the United States has repeatedly told us that we are fighting in Iraq because Osama bin Laden said it was the battlefront. Why is the President listening to a crazy person?

And, I will point out that now that the British military has withdrawn from Basra, Iraq ... attacks in that city have fallen by 90%. It makes one wonder what would happen if the United States military would withdraw from Iraq in totality.

 

[JBrainard]

If you don't believe in using force in self defense, you may be wasting time in martial arts...

There is a difference between retaliation and self defense. Any martial artist worth his salt knows the difference. Do you honestly think that the war on Iraq is going to make them less likely to attack us again?
Please...
This is what I'm trying to get you people to understand. If we new even an ounce of **** about Middle Eastern politics and terrorist ideology in the first place we would have known that starting a war in Iraq would only provoke more terrorist attacks on the US.

 

[CoryKS]

Do you honestly think that the war on Iraq is going to make them less likely to attack us again?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the ones we killed won't attack us again. We'll just have to try harder to get the rest.

 

[JBrainard]

We'll just have to try harder to get the rest.

Al Quida (spelling?) is a worldwide organization. You're dreamin', dude.

 

[CoryKS]

Al Quida (spelling?) is a worldwide organization. You're dreamin', dude.

So are we.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If we new even an ounce of **** about Middle Eastern politics and terrorist ideology in the first place we would have known that starting a war in Iraq would only provoke more terrorist attacks on the US.

Where did they happen?

 

[CoryKS]

What's interesting is that it goes both ways:

If [the terrorists] new even an ounce of **** about [American] politics and ideology in the first place [they] would have known that starting a war [on US soil] would only provoke more attacks [from] the US.

So who, really, is in the best position to take understanding from this situation? IMO, it's the side that is dying in massive ****loads. And before the "grim milestone" people chime in, it ain't us.

 

[Cruentus]

One problem with this Big Don's point of view is that it encourages people to forget that, as horrible as they are, terrorists do have a ryme to thier reason. This hinders diplomacy, and from a military standpoint, you don't really "know your enemy."
But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem (and the administration has spoon fed this to us from the start) is that it dehumanizes the enemy. It makes it much easier to hate and kill our enemies if we feel they are less than human. Why use diplomacy when it means nothing to simply destroy them? Hitler was the master of this tactic. He convinced a nation that Jews were worth less than the dirt they walked on. Countries still use this tactic to push their war-agendas. And our country does it as well.

But these people believe that what they are doing makes complete sense. Again, "know your enemy."

Trust me when I say that I know this enemy better then most, and I can say that given another year/year-and-a-half, I'll know this enemy quite well.

That said, we have to operate on a personal level based on moral principles. Morally, if someone is willing to purposefully do grave bodily damage or death to innocent people, then they have effectively forfeited their right to live. And just because one doesn't like the policies or behaviors of another, that does not give them the right to hurt innocent people. And just because "it makes sense to them" that doesn't make it right or just. I know how they think and how it makes sense to them; but that doesn't give them the right to hurt innocent people.

Does this view "dehumanize" them? I really don't care, for one, and for two it doesn't really matter. And that is because those who are willing to and actively try to hurt/kill innocent people have effectively forfeited their inalienable rights.

 

[Big Don]

Aside from a few random crazies, who the media tried not to ID as Muslims, and who didn't accomplish much, there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. This is amazing, considering the vast numbers of Mexicans and others able to make it across our porous southern border. I'd rather have our military, who are trained, equipped and, btw, PAID to fight our enemies, fight our enemies in Iraq than in, oh say LA, Miami and Dayton. In Clancy's last novel, The Teeth of the TigerMuslims attacked, after coming across the southern border, with automatic weapons in middle American shopping malls.

Al Quida (spelling?) is a worldwide organization.

and yet, they have been unable to strike American targets on American soil one time in over six years... Somehow, I am less than impressed.
Yes, JBrainard, terrorists do have a ryhme to their reason, but, insanity isn't a reasonable ryhme. The few (Shamefully few) Muslims that speak out against terrorism tell us that Islam is a "Religion of Peace™" That would be a lot easier to sell if the anyone from any other religion had ever used suicide bombers. That is one of the precious few innovations by Muslims in the past 700 years. No one else does that. It is an entirely Muslim idea. Even at the height of the "troubles" between the UK and Ireland, no Irishman ever blew himself up to take out others.

 

[michaeledward]

Trust me when I say that I know this enemy better then most, and I can say that given another year/year-and-a-half, I'll know this enemy quite well.

That said, we have to operate on a personal level based on moral principles. Morally, if someone is willing to purposefully do grave bodily damage or death to innocent people, then they have effectively forfeited their right to live. And just because one doesn't like the policies or behaviors of another, that does not give them the right to hurt innocent people. And just because "it makes sense to them" that doesn't make it right or just. I know how they think and how it makes sense to them; but that doesn't give them the right to hurt innocent people.

Does this view "dehumanize" them? I really don't care, for one, and for two it doesn't really matter. And that is because those who are willing to and actively try to hurt/kill innocent people have effectively forfeited their inalienable rights.

I understand that our military has an unwritten polciy of innocent people getting hurt while chasing one of 'them'; the number is twenty. If in an attempt to kill a leader of a terrorist organization, the innocent casualties will be less than 20, the commander on the ground can make the call in favor of launching the strike. If the anticipated civilian casualties are going to be higher than 20 persons, a higher authority for the strike must be sought.

Do we have the right to hurt innocent people in our efforts to chase down "them". (Who ever "them" is this week - for "them" seems to shift quite often).

 

[Big Don]

I understand that our military has an unwritten polciy of innocent people getting hurt while chasing one of 'them'; the number is twenty. If in an attempt to kill a leader of a terrorist organization, the innocent casualties will be less than 20, the commander on the ground can make the call in favor of launching the strike. If the anticipated civilian casualties are going to be higher than 20 persons, a higher authority for the strike must be sought.

Do we have the right to hurt innocent people in our efforts to chase down "them". (Who ever "them" is this week - for "them" seems to shift quite often).

1. No such policy exists! That is the kind of asinine idiocy one would get from places like the dailykos, etc. The US Military bends so far over backwards to NOT hurt non-combatants it endangers our own people.
2. Terrorists have a long history of hiding in residential areas, mosques, schools, and hospitals. Do you know why? Because that makes it really hard for us to shoot back at them.
3. In the first week of basic training American servicemen are taught the "Rules of Land Warfare" A big part of that training is it is WRONG to hide behind non-combatants or to disguise yourself as a non-combatant.
4. Claiming an "unofficial policy" such as the one you suggest exists is an affront to servicemen and veterans. Not being smart enough to realize it is made up ought to just be embarrassing...