WSJ(Op-ed): Was Osama Right?

[alexey]

You're right -- what could Bernard Lewis ever know compared to us enlightened internet forum posters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

This is not a matter of comparing who's degrees are longer. Mr. Lewis clearly has a strong philosophical agenda that caused him to completely omit the real reasons behind events he is discussing.

[alexey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union

The Soviet Union has been the largest arms exporter to the Third World for a number of years. Major arms customers were concentrated in the belt of countries that stretches from North Africa to India, close to the Soviet Union's southern border. Some 72 percent of Soviet weapons exports went to Algeria, India, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Other important customers included Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, South Yemen, and the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen).

and now we revisit the article:

Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent;

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm clearly they were afraid of Soviet Union's ruthless tactics :laugh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

What you obviously miss is the fact that if these people are 'laughing' at us, they feel we are no threat to them, and will act accordingly. Which means that that they will continue to attack us. Until we show them the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES of crossing us, it will continue.

So, if not ruthlessness -- what are the effective alternatives?

Until we actually figure out that it is not a "people" that needs to be fought against then we will loose. It is in fact ideas that we are fighting against and ideas are not destroyed with this:

They are destroyed with this:

[909997]

That's what I believe. It's what I have always believed and what I will always believe. There is nothing and nobody in this world worth as much as a single American life. Which is why I think we should have just carpet-nuked the entire country of Iraq after they assisted in planning an assassination attempt against an American citizen who just happened to be a former President.

what is wrong with you? everyone is created equal

and why should we nuke iraq? because we took over their county and citizens are rebelling?

i dont know about u but if anyone took over usa i dont care if its a good/bad cause i would be out their trying to defend my home and kill many enemies as possible.

[Art]

The point of the article that is very true is we fight a "just" war while our enemies fight a total war. You can't beat an enemy fighting total war against you with self-imposed limitations as to your ability to respond. That is a weakness that will ultimately defeat any war effort we undertake as a nation and a weakness inherent in our population, though, the vast majority of this nation would support fighting this or any war as if we plan on winning.

If you are being attacked from a Mosque, destroy it. If there are bad guys controlling an area of a city, destroy it. You sap the will of the population to fight against you and fear you more than the enemy and you win. World War II was likely the last war we'll win because once we move off the battlefield we don't have a chance.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

Riiiiiight, so let me ask you Sarge what are we fighting against in the Middle East?

I wouldn't really say we are fighting to fight against something. I would go with we are fighting to ensure our civilization (the West) will still be around, let's say, maybe a decade or so from now.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Until we actually figure out that it is not a "people" that needs to be fought against then we will loose. It is in fact ideas that we are fighting against and ideas are not destroyed with this:

The point you miss, is that the PEOPLE in that area are agreeing with, or at least turning a blind eye to those with the ideas. Therefore, they become guilty of the same sin, because they failed to stop it.

For example... The Idiot in Chief in Washington DC has made comments about increasing the sanctions against the Sudanese government if they don't stop their actions in Darfur. Now personally, I don't believe we have any reason to be involved in that issue, but putting that aside for the moment.... IF he really wanted to put a stop to the genocide, the comment should be something along the lines of "Starting this morning, the US Military will wipe out any town, village, or Sudanese military post used to plan, stage, or as a step-off point for attacks against civilians in Darfur." The next attack against Darfur would then be followed up by a flight of F-117's wiping the village/town/army post that the attack was staged from off the map ASAP after the attack on Darfur.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

what is wrong with you? everyone is created equal

and why should we nuke iraq? because we took over their county and citizens are rebelling?

i dont know about u but if anyone took over usa i dont care if its a good/bad cause i would be out their trying to defend my home and kill many enemies as possible.

I believe what MSF is saying is that we should have nuked Iraq after the plotted an assassination against George H. Bush in the early 90's. He's not saying we should nuke Iraq because we took over their county and citizens are rebelling (although he might be, but that's not what his statement may lead you to believe).

[alexey]

The point of the article that is very true is we fight a "just" war while our enemies fight a total war. You can't beat an enemy fighting total war against you with self-imposed limitations as to your ability to respond. That is a weakness that will ultimately defeat any war effort we undertake as a nation and a weakness inherent in our population, though, the vast majority of this nation would support fighting this or any war as if we plan on winning.

Yes.

But by "ability to respond" you probably mean US doing what WE think will help us win... not just knee-jerking but taking calculated actions that are in line with our overall strategy.

If you are being attacked from a Mosque, destroy it. If there are bad guys controlling an area of a city, destroy it.

No...

If WE think that destroying a Mosque is the way to go - yes we should do it... but we give THEM ability to make US destroy a Mosque by attacking from it. We cannot allow THEM to dictate what WE do. OUR actions should be OUR choice.

[Henry]

Sorry -- didn't mean to post the article and just run away from the thread. Gotta actually do some work, ya know

I think there certainly is a bit of a slippery slope ideologically -- where we don't want to become the enemy we are fighting. Or something even worse than the enemy we're fighting.

On the other hand, we don't want to be eternally bringing a knife to a gun fight. We must find ways to effectively counter the islamic extremist movement worldwide, and effectively leverage our many overwhelming advantages. The Soviets did so by being ruthless. In the end, however, I'd argue this ruthlessness ended up permeating many aspects of their society. That's a high price to pay for security.

So, if not ruthlessness -- what are the effective alternatives?

Resilience. We beat our enemies by outlasting them, by wearing them down, and crushing them under the weight of our industrial and economic might. There's no King of America. You can't beat us by killing George Bush. You can't kill us by knocking down our big buildings. We are a nation of the people run by the people. For every little Islamic freaky that is willing to step in and be Osama, we've got a little Timmy who wants to be President. The difference is we don't need little Timmy to be a billionare prince with years of classical education and training. He's got the money and the training of the entire US behind him. If he dies. The next guy (or girl) has all of those resources as well.

On of the reasons we beat out the Soviets was that their leaders died off, and the new guys simply weren't capable of maintaining mid-century iron-fisted control of a turn-of-the-century nation. Remember after Breshnev was Andropov, who died after a year or so, then Chenyenko (sp?) who died after a few months ... then they ran out of the Old Guard and had to elevate Gorby, who was young and didn't feel the connection to the old days. End of USSR. Keep an eye on Cuba. My guess is the same thing will happen to them in the next ten years.

We don't have that problem. Osama does. He's mortal. Sooner or later he will die. So will his henchmen. The US, however, will still be here.

We never win fights by out-evil-ing our enemies. It's not in our nature. However that nature is also the source of our greatest strength: A government of the people, by the people. That strength has enabled us to become the strongest nation in the history of history. I say we go with our strength here.

And for the record, I have no problem bringing a Howizter to a gunfight. Though we haven't been doing that in Iraq, or Afganistan. Which is why people are upset at Bush, and people like Sarge voted for Democrats this past election.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

what is wrong with you? everyone is created equal.

That's something we'll just have to TOTALLY disagree on; on multiple levels.

and why should we nuke iraq? because we took over their county and citizens are rebelling?

How about because THEIR GOVERNMENT assisted in the planning of an assassination attempt on a US Citizen, a former US President, and I believe that the citizens of a country should be held accountable for the actions of their government.

I believe what MSF is saying is that we should have nuked Iraq after the plotted an assassination against George H. Bush in the early 90's. He's not saying we should nuke Iraq because we took over their county and citizens are rebelling (although he might be, but that's not what his statement may lead you to believe).

Absolutely correct.

[909997]

I believe what MSF is saying is that we should have nuked Iraq after the plotted an assassination against George H. Bush in the early 90's. He's not saying we should nuke Iraq because we took over their county and citizens are rebelling (although he might be, but that's not what his statement may lead you to believe).

lets nuke the state of Texas because they assassinated Kennedy:rolleyes:

[airborneskins]

50% of the war is won in the media -Zarqawi

Anyone want to guess who is winning that 50% ?

[alexey]

How about because THEIR GOVERNMENT assisted in the planning of an assassination attempt on a US Citizen, a former US President, and I believe that the citizens of a country should be held accountable for the actions of their government.

Holding accountable can only get you so far... The real, lasting change comes from elsewhere... see crime in US vs crime in Japan as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan

In 1989 Japan experienced 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population, compared with 48.6 for West Germany, 65.8 for Great Britain, and 233.0 for the United States; and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 1.03 for England and Wales, and 8.7 for the United States that same year.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I wouldn't really say we are fighting to fight against something. I would go with we are fighting to ensure our civilization (the West) will still be around, let's say, maybe a decade or so from now.

this doesn't make sense, because you say that "we're fighting to ensure" western civilization will be around in the coming decades, yet you present your argument as if there were no threat, what's the threat to Western civilization? You can't be fighting to ensure something if you're not fighting against something, this is the inherent nature of conflict.

[Henry]

50% of the war is won in the media -Zarqawi

Anyone want to guess who is winning that 50% ?

Zarqawi is dead. - The media.

[DjTj]

World War II was likely the last war we'll win because once we move off the battlefield we don't have a chance.

Except, I don't know, the Cold War, maybe?

[alexey]

Zarqawi is dead. - The media.

hahahaha :applause: :notworthy

[909997]

Except, I don't know, the Cold War, maybe?

the cold war wasnt really a war

[alexey]

this doesn't make sense, because you say that "we're fighting to ensure" western civilization will be around in the coming decades, yet you present your argument as if there were no threat, what's the threat to Western civilization? You can't be fighting to ensure something if you're not fighting against something, this is the inherent nature of conflict.

How about fighting to ensure "Western" remains a "civilization"?

[Henry]

the cold war wasnt really a war

Well, Art did say 'once we move off the battlefield we don't have a chance.'

In response to that, the outcome of The Cold War is a pretty good counter.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

lets nuke the state of Texas because they assassinated Kennedy:rolleyes:

Ok, let me enlighten you. Texas did not assassinate Kennedy, nor was the State of Texas involved in planning the assassination.

There is a HUGE difference between a country's government planning out a assassination and one individual planning and carrying it out on his own. Texas was just the place it happened. I seriously can not believe you actually made that ignorant comment to try and justify your slamming of MSF. Trust me, there's a lot more people out there to do that on this board that actually think out their attacks against him (some very well thought out may I add).

Let me also just say that I'm not siding with MSF (although I do share some of his views, but not to the extreme), but I'm rather pointing out the flaws in your statement.

If you want to try and blame a government for the assassination of Kennedy, you might want to start looking at Cuba and the dealings that Castro had with Oswald.

Do some research and then come back to me:thumbsup:

[AsburySkinsFan]

The point you miss, is that the PEOPLE in that area are agreeing with, or at least turning a blind eye to those with the ideas. Therefore, they become guilty of the same sin, because they failed to stop it.

Then they are not that good of ideas.

[Art]

Except, I don't know, the Cold War, maybe?

The cold war was not a war. There was no killing and our enemy was a fatally flawed economic system that was going to destroy itself in any case. In war where there is killing, we can't win anymore, because we won't actually let ourselves fight unfairly.

We've allowed ourselves to become the men in bright red coats marching down the center of the road waiting for the enemy to stand in front of it taking turns firing at each other.

[headexplode]

The point of the article that is very true is we fight a "just" war while our enemies fight a total war. You can't beat an enemy fighting total war against you with self-imposed limitations as to your ability to respond. That is a weakness that will ultimately defeat any war effort we undertake as a nation and a weakness inherent in our population, though, the vast majority of this nation would support fighting this or any war as if we plan on winning.

If you are being attacked from a Mosque, destroy it. If there are bad guys controlling an area of a city, destroy it. You sap the will of the population to fight against you and fear you more than the enemy and you win. World War II was likely the last war we'll win because once we move off the battlefield we don't have a chance.

I'm not sure how "just" our war is, or even what war we're fighting anymore. I do agree that we're far too cautious of political appearances--our elected leaders are far more concerned with the next election than they are with winning and strangling our enemy. But when you don't have any defined enemy . . . and when your leaders lack the credibility to wage a successful campaign . . . what then? How much incompetence should we have to deal with? At the outset of the Iraq war, public support for the war (and the commander-in-cheif) was at historic highs. Since then a lot has happened, one of them being that the Bush administration has been exposed as a hollow farce, a circus act that defines itself not by what it does, but by how they can manage the public perception of what they do. Not that this is new, of course, but it seems they take it to a whole new art form.

The difference between WWII and the Iraq War, or even the GWOT, is that then all Americans were asked to participate, and sacrifice. Now, only a small percentage are asked to do the hard stuff while the rest of us continue watching "Idol" and eating McDonald's and listen to all the top 40 hits from the 70s, 80s, 90s and today. We cannot have "total war" when most of the country wouldn't even know a war was going on if they didn't see a yellow ribbon bumper sticker on ever car, truck, and SUV that they see on the road.

It's tough to live in a time and society when the most popular (and therefore the greatest by our own logic) thinkers are Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken.