Obama Would Invade Pakistan

[iNow]

I doubt killing ODB would have much effect on Islamic terrorism.

I agree. Wu-Tang Clan lost ODB back in '004.

 

 

I will state that you cannot stop terrorism with more killing. There are too many heads of the monster to cut off. Terrorism is only stopped by leading in such a way as to sway hearts and minds to your side. Easier said than done, I recognize that, but I stand by my claim all the same.

[Sisyphus]

I agree. Wu-Tang Clan lost ODB back in '004.

 

Ha. Stupid subconscious.

[ParanoiA]

Missile defense is and always has been a joke.

 

I realize that, and we've been down that road before. Present efforts in technology are no indication of the potential for those efforts. Missile defense is a smart move and needs to be invested in generously. That, and a dozen other defense oriented military developments. It only makes sense to spend more on military defense than offense, for a non-interventionist country, which is what I'd like to see my country become.

 

In a static world we might say, 'fine' . Those with nukes keep them and try and discourage the rest. But, it's not going to stay static. It's in the interest of the USA, Russia etc. to phase out nukes while they still have the upper hand. Phase them out now through a position of strength. In a hundred years with advancing nuclear technology it won't matter who has what weapons as even modest nations may have the capabilityof killing everyone else.

 

Another argument for nuclear defense, in my mind. When everybody has a gun, the next logical step is a Kevlar vest. When everybody has one of those, then everybody wins. Particularly the bulk of the powerless, relatively innocent.

 

A possible forward step towards nuclear sanity would be for a country like the UK or France to announce it is getting rid of nuclear wepons. They would could be given defense guarantees by the USA and Russia.

 

Defense gaurantees...the continued sovereignty sell off. No, I don't think prearranged military obligations are good for anyone, except the country being protected. This needs to stop. You should earn your alliances per the given situation. These prearranged alliances promote blind obligation, conflicts with latter generations being forced to provide military support - serious, serious consequences - that they don't necessarily agree with.

 

I don't think it's fair to obligate future generations of americans in a future we cannot predict. Particularly military conflict. The consequences are way too serious to be doing this. Defense of other nations should be earned by that nation's merit, not by some document signed in the distant past.

[pioneer]

I don't think Obama implied invading Pakistan. It sounds more like using covert ops to take the heat off the Pakistani government. We make covert agreements, so the leadership can still talk the talk for his people. Then he can show us where to go, and then act very surprised and outraged. He gets his browny points and we deny all knowledge. Obama's problem was addressed by Hilary. Don't say everything you think or play your cards a little closer.

[lucaspa]

Sure. Why not? How many nuclear warheads going off on our soil would it take to defeat us?

 

A lot more than al-Qaeda can get its hands on. Does the United States cease to be the United States and turn the government into a Islamic theocracy if we lose 1, 2, 5, or 10 cities? No. Ain't gonna happen.

 

Or maybe, with enough people like you around, maybe it does happen ... Would you trade your liberty for your life?

 

Yes, al-Qaeda has the (unlikely) potential to kill several thousand Americans. Maybe even as many as a million. Out of a nation of 300 million. That's 0.003% of the population. We have more than that die from cancer each year. But that doesn't occupy the country or defeat our armed forces. So it's not defeating the USA unless the majority of our people decide to trade liberty and their way of life for their lives. If they do that, then they deserve the theocratic tyranny they are going to get. Me? I'll be emigrating or joining the Resistance.

 

If they can coordinate 4 jets on 9/11, then they can coordinate other flying things too...things like nuclear weapons.

 

They got very lucky on 9/11. Lucky because our intelligence services were asleep. They don't have the manufacturing or technical base to produce their own nuclear armed missiles. So they have to try to get them from people who do have the industrial base. How many nuclear warheads do you think al-Qaeda can they get illegally?

 

Don't think we're unbeatable just because we got fancy war toys.

 

You are confusing losing a few battles or suffering casualities with losing the war.

 

In WWII we murdered, slaughtered thousands if not millions.These are techniques that work. Our government had better behave that way when called for. Terrorism hasn't "won" anything.

 

Did we torture prisoners? Did we set the FBI on our own people like the Gestapo? This is what is being discussed, not openly killing people in battle. The problem with this style of behavior is that we become the terrorists. Do you doubt that the Gestapo or KGB were terrorists to their own people? This is what is being advocated. That's why Abu Ghraib was so bad: we were the Gestapo running a Gestapo style prison.

 

Yes, we still are "Americans", but it is a government that takes away our freedom just as effectively as an Islamic theocracy would.

 

If we allow our government to take that type of power, where does it stop?

 

Your government's actions against others is not even the most remote indication of their intent to you and your countrymen, so totalitarian-like or not, it's irrelevant.

 

Sure it is an indication! How naive can you be? Does it stop only with "terrorists"? Who decides who exactly are the "terrorists"? Why can't the government come into your home, kidnap you, take you to a secret prison, torture you, and kill you? All they have to say is that you are a "terrorist". Who checks up to see that this is true?

 

The problem with freedom and rights are that they has to apply to everyone. If you start making exceptions, and particularly when you let the people in power in government start deciding without any checks and balances, then there is no way to stop them. Remember, Hitler and Mussolini were voted into office.

 

Terrorism wins when you give them what they want. They don't win anything if we get all kooky and kill everybody on the planet. They don't win anything if we become despicable and inflame our malice.

 

Well, if we kill EVERYBODY on the planet, no one wins. However, if we decide to try and kill all Muslims, yes they do win. They also win if we turn despicable and malicious. Then we become them.

 

What they want is for us to leave their precious soil. They wouldn't be attacking us if we didn't violate their religious ground. It's about our presence there, not how we behave and live over here.

 

That isn't what al-Qaeda wants. That's what a large proportion of the Iraqi insurgency wants. They perceive us as an occupying power. Unfortunately, they are correct. bin Laden and al-Qaeda have stated repeatedly that they want Western secular society to disappear. They perceive that society and way of life to be a direct threat to their desired way of life. They are correct. Given a choice, people prefer the tolerant, material Western lifestyle to the restrictive lifestyle imposed by radical Islam.

 

It is impossible for us to simply "behave and live over here". Communications are global. Re-runs of "Dallas" and other TV shows are regularly broadcast in Islamic countries. They have short wave radios and access to the Internet. The wealthier of them travel to the West. They send their sons to be educated and many of them get used to women being in college with them and not wearing traditional dress. They like that lifestyle and want it when they go home. Our presence is simply an excuse. One of bin Lauden's propaganda efforts was that US troops had "defiled" Mecca. In fact, of course, NO US military personnel ever went to Mecca -- out of sensibility to the Saudis and the possibility of offending people like bin Laudin. It didn't work, so the "offense" is not being there, but existing at all and providing an example of a way of life preferable to the one bin Lauden and the conservative Islamists want people to live.

 

Of course, you and I say "tough shit" to them. In the marketplace of ideas, the ideals of the Taliban and al-Qaeda are going to lose.

 

I don't think Obama implied invading Pakistan. It sounds more like using covert ops to take the heat off the Pakistani government. We make covert agreements, so the leadership can still talk the talk for his people. Then he can show us where to go, and then act very surprised and outraged. He gets his browny points and we deny all knowledge. Obama's problem was addressed by Hilary. Don't say everything you think or play your cards a little closer.

 

Obama was talking small "covert ops" teams. But the important thing was using those teams WITHOUT permission of the Pakistani government. That's the big no-no. Yes, if you invite another country to use their military on your soil -- like the Free French or Dutch resistance in WWII, then it's OK.

 

But the idea you propose -- a secret deal with Musharef to violate Pakistani territory with his covert permission but public opposition -- is a recipe for disaster. Both to us and Musharef. As a secret, it makes the USA a really bad guy to the average Muslim citizen of any and every Islamic country because we invaded a friendly soveriegn nation. When the secret deal gets out -- and it will eventually get out -- then Musharef is seen as betraying his own people (which he did) and the USA corrupted him. It means no Muslim can ever again trust any public figure who is friendly with the USA. So, no Muslim leader friendly to the USA can either stay or get into power.

 

They represent an extinction risk for the human species.

 

Only in large numbers. By that I mean the detonation of 100+ nuclear warheads within a couple of months. That's what the TAPPS study showed for nuclear winter.

 

Otherwise, yes, they kill a large number of people by blast and thermal pulse, and more by increased incidence of cancer from the fallout. But they do not pose an "extinction risk".

 

So the issue becomes one of deterrence vs extinction. N. Korea only needs 10 or so bombs total to be an effective deterrent. Why? Because Seoul lies only 30 miles south of the DMZ and no S. Korean politician is going to risk even a Hiroshima sized firecracker going off in Seoul. So having 10 ensures that one will get delivered.

 

The same has applied to India and Pakistan. The best estimates I get are 20 nukes between them. But that's sufficient for a deterrence against invasion of one by the other. And that applies to Iran. Iran doesn't need the ability to wipe out 20 American cities, but only enough nukes to take out a carrier taskforce or a division of troops. That capability right there is enough to deter any US politician from aggressive action toward Iran.

 

It's not enough for "extinction" of the human species. Yes, we would like Iran not to have nukes, because that would make it so much easier to intimidate Iran.

 

Your only argument against this petty type of nuclear proliferation would be the possibility of a war between many 10-20 states, each being able to deliver 5-10 nukes. (Notice I said "deliver", not "have". The reason our and the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenals were so big is that, like most ammunition, most of it isn't going to get to target against opposition. Some bombs simply won't detonate, planes will get shot down, missiles will veer from course, etc. ) That is possible (witness the web of alliances that became WWI), but unlikely.

 

And that is why the effort against nuclear proliferation is "weak". Anyone who has read the TAPPS paper and thought about it realizes that the threat just isn't anywhere as severe as you paint it to be. Therefore the threat doesn't justify the short term military cost to stop each and every country from becoming a nuclear power. For instance, the USA simply doesn't have the conventional power to really stop Iran if Iran is determined to become a nuclear power. Yes, we can perhaps bomb the facilities with B-2's and cruise missiles, but all the Iranians have to do is build new ones underground. We can set them back 5-10 years, but not stop them. We would have to invade and occupy the country, and our entire Army and Marines are not large enough to do that. We would have to reinstate the draft and triple the number of the Army and Marine combat divisions in order to have enough. Can you really see us doing that? Would you vote for it?

[swansont]

Yes, al-Qaeda has the (unlikely) potential to kill several thousand Americans. Maybe even as many as a million. Out of a nation of 300 million. That's 0.003% of the population.

 

um, math correction: 1/300 = 0.003 or 0.3%

[ParanoiA]

Or maybe, with enough people like you around, maybe it does happen ... Would you trade your liberty for your life?

 

Uh, no. What made you think I would? Oh, I see, you made you think I would...

 

I have never argued for sacrificing civil liberties in any way shape or form. Find where I stated that in my post or else stop throwing in strawman arguments to make it easy to debate. Why even discuss anything in here if you're just going to catergorize everyone and attack the category? You can do that without us.

 

I'm not taking issue with sacrificing civil liberties for some stupid idea of "security". I have never and will never agree to any such thing and you won't find any of my posts supporting that.

 

I'm taking issue because you seem to think terrorism is an annoyance rather than a problem. Because you want to make the same mistakes as the other superpowers in our history and under estimate those who oppose you. I realize that Al Queda's got a lot on their plate if they're going to utterly destroy our entire country, but that's ONLY because we're actively trying to prevent it. If everyone had your attitude, they would have already succeeded in their multi-nuclear warhead simultaneous attack theme on our soil.

 

They got very lucky on 9/11. Lucky because our intelligence services were asleep.

 

Lucky? No. Predictable? Yes.

 

They didn't get lucky. They knew how stupidly futile it is to have "systems" to prevent criminal acts. A "system" can always be conquered just by virtue of being a system. As long as that's how we think, that's how we'll die.

 

I could walk out to a school yard at lunch time and mow down tens of children at any moment - got a system for that?. I could rent U-Haul's largest truck and plow full speed into a bridge pillar - got a system for that?. If I can fish my county's resevoir I can get poisons in it too. I could think of hundred's of terror acts to perform on our soil that no "system" will ever conquere. Intelligence services asleep? Let them stay awake. It doesn't matter, you still won't stop it. You can't.

 

How many nuclear warheads do you think al-Qaeda can they get illegally?

 

As many as they want. You think there's really a limit-per-customer? Please, don't be so naive. Yeah, we can't find OBL after a 5 year unprecedented manhunt in one general area with multi-million dollar rewards, but we can be sure that world wide Al Queda won't get very many nuclear warheads?

 

You are confusing losing a few battles or suffering casualities with losing the war.

 

No, actually I'm the one who recognizes that we win most of our battles in Iraq and are terribly successful at war. Winning these battles doesn't win the war though.

 

And no amount of these soldiers and hardware is going to do a damn thing to keep our country from being destroyed by terrorism. I don't believe your precious intelligence agencies and electronic gizmos are going to save us from anything - more likely to help destroy us with the false sense of security you're selling here.

 

Did we torture prisoners? Did we set the FBI on our own people like the Gestapo? This is what is being discussed, not openly killing people in battle. The problem with this style of behavior is that we become the terrorists. Do you doubt that the Gestapo or KGB were terrorists to their own people? This is what is being advocated. That's why Abu Ghraib was so bad: we were the Gestapo running a Gestapo style prison.

 

Here you go again inferring ignorant arguments from my posts. I'm taking issue with your emotional statements. Does our torturing prisoners cause Al Queda to gain strength? No. Does Abu Ghraib give the insurgency new ground in Iraq? No.

 

My point is about this silly notion that if we act like them, then terrorism wins. No it doesn't. No, if we act like them, then we lose a part of ourselves - and that is not tolerable. But they don't win anything, anyway. Understand the difference. You're making poetic statements, emotional appeals that don't stand up to logic. I'm not therefore arguing for more Gestapo behavior, I'm arguing for reality here, not poetry.

 

The problem with freedom and rights are that they has to apply to everyone. If you start making exceptions, and particularly when you let the people in power in government start deciding without any checks and balances, then there is no way to stop them. Remember, Hitler and Mussolini were voted into office.

 

No, you didn't understand my post. Probably because you chop whole paragraphs into little pieces and argue each piece independent of the others. So, you get lost in the discussion and the context of those pieces.

 

Pay attention this time, please. The point I was making is that my government gives me the right to a fair trial, here at home, but shoots some guy in the head because he's wearing a particular uniform, over there in Iraq. This is what I'm talking about. Because my government shoots that guy in the head in Iraq - for wearing the wrong uniform - does not mean my government is going to start shooting me in the head, here at home.

 

When our governments war and conflict, they are going to behave to each other in ways they would never behave towards their own people. Like murdering soldiers on a battle field, but requiring trials and due process at home. Your government's behavior toward your enemy, is not necessarily an indication of its intent toward you. That was my only point. I dare you not to infer more to my position than that.

 

Well, if we kill EVERYBODY on the planet, no one wins. However, if we decide to try and kill all Muslims, yes they do win. They also win if we turn despicable and malicious. Then we become them.

 

How do they win if we become despicable and malicious? They get a prize or something? Does that somehow translate to americans leaving their soil? Again, it sounds like more poetry...

 

That isn't what al-Qaeda wants.

 

We disagree. Maybe a thread just on this subject is in order? What Al-Qaeda wants...

 

 

I'm mainly taking issue with the after-school-special mentallity with the cliche one liners - "If we become them, they win". No we don't, and no they don't. If we become them, we lose everything we stand for as a country. What we stand for matters more than the ends, to me. I'd rather be dead than live without freedom and the moral high ground concerning how we behave ourselves in this conflict.

 

But none of that makes that poetic one liner any smarter. The terrorists don't win if we turn all totalitarian and create a military state with absolute control over our soceity. In fact, we'd probably roll all over them without care for innocent civilians, dropping nukes and reduce the whole region to rubble. Whatever, I don't see a big win for terrorism in that case...

[lucaspa]

Uh, no. What made you think I would? Oh, I see, you made you think I would...

 

I have never argued for sacrificing civil liberties in any way shape or form. Find where I stated that in my post or else stop throwing in strawman arguments to make it easy to debate.

 

This is what gave me the idea that you would trade liberty for life:

 

I had said: "But "victory" for al-Qaeda is destruction of the government of the USA and our tolerant, secular society. Can al-Qaeda achieve those objectives? "

 

You said: "Sure. Why not? How many nuclear warheads going off on our soil would it take to defeat us? "

 

You are saying that if Al-Qaeda kills several thousand Americans, we will give up our liberties and tolerant, secular society. That is trading our liberty for our lives: stop killing a few of us and we will give up our liberty. If a lot of people feel like you do, then Al-Qaeda can win. If most Americans adhere to Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death" -- then they can't.

 

Now, if you really didn't mean that a few nuclear weapons would cause us to cave in and give up our way of life, then say so. But please don't accuse me of making strawmen when I am simply following what you are saying. If you are mispeaking, that is your problem, not mine.

 

I'm taking issue because you seem to think terrorism is an annoyance rather than a problem. Because you want to make the same mistakes as the other superpowers in our history and under estimate those who oppose you.

 

Please listen carefully: Al-Qaeda is a problem, but not a CRITICAL problem. IOW, al-Qaeda cannot acheive their objectives ALONE without us making a huge error. We tolerate a low level of violence in our society, from crime to automobile accidents. They are "problems", and we actively try to prevent them. But we realize that these problems are not going to destroy our way of life or government. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists (such as the Weathermen in the 1960s or the Unibomber) fall into that category of violent problems that we can survive and live with.

 

I object to elevating al-Qaeda to a higher level threat than what it is. Yes, underestimating your enemy is not good. Overestimating your enemy, losing your head, and letting panic force you into a major mistake is worse.

 

If everyone had your attitude, they would have already succeeded in their multi-nuclear warhead simultaneous attack theme on our soil.

 

And now who's making strawmen? Sauce for the goose. We actively try and stop criminals. The FBI was actively trying to prevent terrorists attacks before 9/11. Al-Qaeda has several problems with a mult-warhead attack in the US. The first problem is getting several nuclear bombs. There are agencies around the world that work to prevent that; that try to keep nuclear weapons and the material to make them secure. That is just the first line of defense.

 

They didn't get lucky.

The findings of the 9/11 Commission disagree with you. They got lucky in that the people tracking the situation simply didn't make the correct hypothesis from the data. That's not a systems failure; it's a failure in individuals.

 

I could walk out to a school yard at lunch time and mow down tens of children at any moment - got a system for that?.

 

No. And I haven't advocated a system for it! I don't know where this argument is coming from or why you are making it. I said our intelligence services were asleep. That is a failure of individuals -- not a system. How you got from my statement to this rant I have no idea.

 

Intelligence services asleep? Let them stay awake. It doesn't matter, you still won't stop it. You can't.

 

I know. You can't stop these attacks completely -- not and maitain a free society. That is what I'm saying. However, I'm looking beyond the inability to completely stop terrorist attacks and asking: if there a few attacks and far between, what is the effect? I'm saying that the effect is that some Americans -- perhaps including you and me -- will die. But AMERICA will be fine. You seem to disagree with that when you claim a few nuclear detonations would have al-Qaeda "win" as I defined the term. Are you sticking with that claim? If so, then I'm puzzled by your current insistence thatwe can't stop attacks. If you also maintain that, then in conjuction with your earlier claim, you are conceding that al-Qaeda is going to win in the long term. Is that what we are disagreeing about? You saying al-Qaeda will inevitably destroy America and my saying that they won't?

 

Yeah, we can't find OBL after a 5 year unprecedented manhunt in one general area with multi-million dollar rewards, but we can be sure that world wide Al Queda won't get very many nuclear warheads?

 

Yes, apples and oranges. OBL is hiding in a population that won't give him up and that we can't penetrate. Nuclear warheads, OTOH, are items that can be very carefully tracked and guarded. It's not like they are AK-47s. They can't just make a whole bunch of nuclear weapons disappear without people noticing.

 

You said: "Don't think we're unbeatable just because we got fancy war toys."

 

I said: "You are confusing losing a few battles or suffering casualities with losing the war. "

 

Now you say:

No, actually I'm the one who recognizes that we win most of our battles in Iraq and are terribly successful at war.

The context was NOT Iraq. The context was a minimal number of terrorist attacks within the USA. Please try to keep in context and stop making strawmen. The context was your statement above that exploding a few nuclear warheads on US soil would "defeat" us the way I defined it: causing us to give up our way of life and government.

 

Yes, al-Qaeda can launch an occasional successful attack. But LOOK at the number of attacks outside Iraq and Afghanistan since 9-10-2001. Two in the US (on the same day), one in Spain, one in Bali, two in Great Britain. That is 6 attacks in as many years. You can't win a war this way. Especially when, in the country that is your greatest enemy (US) you have only (essentially) one attack in 6 years. You simply can't destroy a country that way.

 

Again, before you make another strawman, let me emphasize that this doesn't mean we don't oppose al-Qaeda, or stop reasonable security measures, or tell the FBI and CIA to take a vacation. It is simply asking you, and everyone, to step back and look at this from a strategic military perspective. When you do that, the situation is a lot less scary and dangerous.

 

And no amount of these soldiers and hardware is going to do a damn thing to keep our country from being destroyed by terrorism.

 

Tell me, HOW exactly is our country going to be "destroyed" by terrorism? Are we going to formally surrender to al-Qaeda? Are we going to be occupied by al-Qaeda, like we occupied Germany and Japan after WWII and dictated their government? Are we voluntarily going to change our laws to "sura" laws and make our nation an Islamic state like Iran? Please, tell us how terrorism will destroy us.

 

Does our torturing prisoners cause Al Queda to gain strength? No. Does Abu Ghraib give the insurgency new ground in Iraq? No.

 

The data says otherwise. Read the NIEs.

 

My point is about this silly notion that if we act like them, then terrorism wins. No it doesn't. No, if we act like them, then we lose a part of ourselves - and that is not tolerable. But they don't win anything, anyway. Understand the difference.

 

You say we lose part of ourselves. Who do we become like in that process? Al-Qaeda, right? If we become indistinguishable from al-Qaeda, isn't that what they want? For all the world to become just like they are? And didn't you say that terrorism wins when they get what they want? I'm just following the logic. If you disagree, show me where the logic fails.

 

The point I was making is that my government gives me the right to a fair trial, here at home, but shoots some guy in the head because he's wearing a particular uniform, over there in Iraq. This is what I'm talking about. Because my government shoots that guy in the head in Iraq - for wearing the wrong uniform - does not mean my government is going to start shooting me in the head, here at home.

 

Please look at what has been happening. BECAUSE the government declared al-Qaeda members to be enemy combatants, they said they could imprison them forever without trial. And they captured several al-Qaida members overseas and imprisoned them at Guantanamo without trial. Then the Bush government claimed that Jose Padilla, a US citizen living in the US, was a member of al-Qaeda. What did they do? Declared him an enemy combatant and imprisoned him without trial. The only reason Padilla got a trial was that the Supreme Court demanded it and the Executive Branch (thank God) was not willing to ignore the Judicial Branch.

 

But let me point out a strawman embedded in your argument: "for wearing the wrong uniform". THat's not the reason that the government shot the guy in the head in Iraq, was it? After all, al-Qaeda in Iraq is not wearing uniforms,but civilian clothing. No, the reason the guy gets shot in the head is because the government says he is a member of al-Qaeda. So, if the government says YOU are a member of al-Qaeda, why shouldn't they shoot you in the head? Aren't you even more dangerous to the US being an al-Qaeda member here than if you were in Iraq? So, if shooting a al-Qaeda prisoner in the head is justifiable in Iraq, why is it not justifiable in the US?

 

When our governments war and conflict, they are going to behave to each other in ways they would never behave towards their own people. Your government's behavior toward your enemy, is not necessarily an indication of its intent toward you.

 

The problem is with "your enemy". Who is that "enemy"? This war isn't with a "government", is it? It's against "terrorists". But who gets to say who is a terrorist and who isn't? If you say this behavior is OK toward "terrorists", and accept that a person is a terrorist because someone in the government says so, then what is to prevent that someone from declaring YOU a "terrorist" and behaving that way toward you? Remember, the al-Qaeda "terrorists" in Britain were home grown; they were not agents smuggled into the country.

 

The question to you is: does being a US citizen confer differences on how the government treats al-Qaeda members? If so, why? What is your reasoning here.

 

Like murdering soldiers on a battle field, but requiring trials and due process at home.

 

Are you equating killing in combat with murder?

 

How do they win if we become despicable and malicious?

 

The same way that Nazi and Soviet atrocities and maliciousness contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany or the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. The Nazis were treated as liberators when they entered the Ukraine in 1941. Their "despicable and malicious" behavior turned the popuation against them and caused the formation of very effective Partisan bands. In this case, if our behavior is despicable and malicious to Muslims in general, then we turn all the countries that have a Muslim majority against us AND make guerilla bands of Muslims living inside the US and other Western countries. Uniting the Muslim world against us provides the population, resources, and industrial base to wage conventional war that al-Qaeda lacks. However, a coalition of Muslim countries would be able to wage conventional war -- and destroy the USA in the time-tested ways nations are destroyed in conventional wars. They get a prize or something? Does that somehow translate to americans

 

 

I'm mainly taking issue with the after-school-special mentallity with the cliche one liners - "If we become them, they win". No we don't, and no they don't. If we become them, we lose everything we stand for as a country. What we stand for matters more than the ends, to me. I'd rather be dead than live without freedom and the moral high ground concerning how we behave ourselves in this conflict.

 

1. I agree with your last statement. But compare that to your statements about al-Qaeda being able to "destroy" the US with a few nuclear weapons. The only way for the US to be "destroyed" in that situation is for you and others to decide they would rather be alive than dead.

 

2. There are 2 ways al-Qaeda wins if we become them. Please address those ways instead of assertions of denial. As you say, we lose everything we stand for as a country and society and end up with a society that is indistinguishable from Iran or Taliban Afghanistan. By your own standards, that is a loss for us but isn't it also a "win" for al-Qaeda. After all, don't we define "winning" in Iraq as establishing a government and society similar to ours? Second, as I outlined above, we make all Islam our enemy. That produces a coalition of nations that can defeat us in a conventional war,occupy us, and force us to have a Taliban government. Wouldn't you agree that al-Qaeda wins in that situation?

 

I realize that Al Queda's got a lot on their plate if they're going to utterly destroy our entire country, but that's ONLY because we're actively trying to prevent it. If everyone had your attitude, they would have already succeeded in their multi-nuclear warhead simultaneous attack theme on our soil. ...

They didn't get lucky. They knew how stupidly futile it is to have "systems" to prevent criminal acts. A "system" can always be conquered just by virtue of being a system. As long as that's how we think, that's how we'll die.

 

.... I could think of hundred's of terror acts to perform on our soil that no "system" will ever conquere. Intelligence services asleep? Let them stay awake. It doesn't matter, you still won't stop it. You can't.

 

I'm trying to understand the contradictory statements here. You start by stating that al-Qaeda is being PREVENTED from destroying our country by terrorist attacks. But then you state that it is impossible to stop/prevent terrorist attacks.

 

Do you see the logical contradiction here? By your argument that neither any system nor the people in intelligence services can stop a terrorist attack, then why do you think we can prevent a multi-warhead attack?

 

If we can't prevent one, then by your premise, we will be destroyed. The logical question then is: why are we fighting terrorism? Just what do you consider an effective strategy to be? From your statements, unconditional surrender would be one option. But if we rule out surrender, what are you advocating?

 

Now remember that my positions are:

1. Even a 5 warhead attack on the USA would not "destroy" us.

2. Our current level of prevention is fairly effective since we haven't had a terrorist attack in the USA since 2001 -- 6 years. And it had been 6 years then since the last Islamic attack (also on the World Trade Center in 1995).

[ParanoiA]

This is what gave me the idea that you would trade liberty for life:

 

I had said: "But "victory" for al-Qaeda is destruction of the government of the USA and our tolerant' date=' secular society. Can al-Qaeda achieve those objectives? "

 

You said: "Sure. Why not? How many nuclear warheads going off on our soil would it take to defeat us? "[/quote']

 

Well, the word "and" kind of ruins my premise, but my argument is in reference to the destruction of our government. I think a small number of nuclear warheads, strategically placed, will collapse our government. I do believe, that Al Queda have the patience, tenacity, resilience and sacrifice necessary to achieve this end if we are not actively securing our borders and taking their threat seriously.

 

But I am also not willing to sacrifice my civil liberties to do this, and it's not necessary to anyway. We can keep our house clean with liberty.

 

Please listen carefully: Al-Qaeda is a problem, but not a CRITICAL problem.

 

And here's where we fundamentally disagree. I believe they are a critical problem. I believe the existence of our nation is at stake when millions upon millions of brain washed, socially conditioned and controlled people hate our guts - and fractions of them create racist murder clubs to exercise that hatred. Again, this does not mean I believe we need to panic and lose our minds in a rage of offensive military conflict throughout the world. And I shouldn't have to say that....

 

They got lucky in that the people tracking the situation simply didn't make the correct hypothesis from the data. That's not a systems failure; it's a failure in individuals.

 

Individuals fail in systems. Systems, practically by definition, are repetitious flow charts of decisions and predetermined action. This is why they will always be penetrable. Study it long enough and you'll find the right loop holes to exploit for your cause. Individuals fail in systems because of the repetition, in my opinion. This is a broad brush I'm using, but the point is still valid.

 

No. And I haven't advocated a system for it! I don't know where this argument is coming from or why you are making it.

 

Relax, I'm just adding supporting arguments for my point that systems don't cover everything - actually they cover hardly anything at all.

 

if there a few attacks and far between, what is the effect? I'm saying that the effect is that some Americans -- perhaps including you and me -- will die. But AMERICA will be fine.

 

The effect is millions and millions of dead people. Yes america will be fine....with millions and millions of dead bodies to deal with. I just don't agree that it shouldn't be treated as a top priority for this country's problems. It's as important as any war on our soil.

 

Is that what we are disagreeing about? You saying al-Qaeda will inevitably destroy America and my saying that they won't?

 

Close. My saying that Al Qaeda can destroy America and your saying they won't/can't.

 

OTOH, are items that can be very carefully tracked and guarded. It's not like they are AK-47s. They can't just make a whole bunch of nuclear weapons disappear without people noticing.

 

No they are not. You can't gaurantee that. Like Bush said, we have to be right everytime, they only have to be successful once. I agree with the theme of that statement, in that I'm not willing to gamble with the existence of my country based on "tracking systems". To use that as an excuse to eleviate "critical concern" with nuclear terrorism is folly, to me.

 

Nuclear proliferation is on the fast track in the middle east and the more people we piss off the easier it's going to be for Al Qaeda to obtain nuclear weapons. WMD packaging is also getting smaller and smaller, and will continue to do so - biological and so forth. The list of nations that would like to see the US a smoldering field of dirt is growing and growing. Once a nation goes nuclear, we don't have many options and that list is also growing and growing. I really think you need to re-think your position on this. In twenty years, how much easier will WMD's be attained by terror groups? 30 years? 50? I mean really...

 

The context was NOT Iraq. The context was a minimal number of terrorist attacks within the USA. Please try to keep in context and stop making strawmen.

 

Sorry, you said "the war" so I naturally thought "Iraq". Invalid thought reference on my part. My point was that I don't think it matters how successful we are in military confrontation when the method of terrorism is sneaky, under the radar type warfare.

 

Yes, al-Qaeda can launch an occasional successful attack. But LOOK at the number of attacks outside Iraq and Afghanistan since 9-10-2001. Two in the US (on the same day), one in Spain, one in Bali, two in Great Britain. That is 6 attacks in as many years. You can't win a war this way.

 

You're right they can't win that way. Those attacks are designed to scare societies, not to overthrow governments and take control. It's fairly cost effective to scare societies into submission rather than full scale invasion, which they don't have the numbers to do in any way.

 

But when they're done trying to scare americans into changing themselves to be liked, they'll ramp it up. I'm envisioning a crippling coordinated attack that allows another aggressive, opportunist country to exploit, for one. This is what I take seriously. Nuclear weapons and other WMD's make that possible.

 

Please, tell us how terrorism will destroy us.

 

I've already made that clear. Terrorism can destroy us if we pretend they are not a serious threat - a critical threat. I believe that will allow just enough complacency to thwart our "systems", just like on 9/11, and set off a light show with millions of corpses in the wake. When the bully on the block falls down, the world will cheer. Some may even rush to kick the bully into submission, or total destruction. When you piss off nations like we do, for decads on end, you're setting yourself up for this.

 

You say we lose part of ourselves. Who do we become like in that process? Al-Qaeda, right?

 

No. If we lose part of ourselves going on a murderous rampage throughout the globe, we will be worse than them and we'll be worse for them. This doesn't win them anything, rather helps them to lose actually since we'd obviously care less and less about collateral damage and more and more about just killing terrorists - to hell with the consequences! You see how this moral poetry is misleading? It's cute for grade school philosophy, but we're grown ups now. Becoming the enemy isn't a win for the enemy.

 

It's a loss for us, though, no doubt. But it's not a loss they gain anything from, other than maybe just the psychology of knowing they altered us somehow. That's still not a win since it doesn't advance their goal at all - unless of course making us murderous pigs is their goal - and it's not in this case. Their goal is to make the world Islamic followers, not murderers of Islamic followers.

 

BECAUSE the government declared al-Qaeda members to be enemy combatants, they said they could imprison them forever without trial. And they captured several al-Qaida members overseas and imprisoned them at Guantanamo without trial. Then the Bush government claimed that Jose Padilla, a US citizen living in the US, was a member of al-Qaeda. What did they do? Declared him an enemy combatant and imprisoned him without trial. The only reason Padilla got a trial was that the Supreme Court demanded it and the Executive Branch (thank God) was not willing to ignore the Judicial Branch.

 

I must have misuderstood where you were going with this earlier, because I agree with what you're saying here, to a point. I thought you were saying that if my government treats OTHERS, as in non-americans, in offensive "totalitarian-like" ways, then that's an indication of how my government wants to treat me. So, I was pointing out that war involves shooting people without any due process, the enemy, which is distinguishable by clothing - traditionally anyway, and yet my government still hasn't circumvented due process here at home.

 

But in the context of this terror war, I think you're right. Nabbing citizens here at home and stripping their civil rights without due process is not acceptable to me. Illegal immigrant, different story - but US citizen, not acceptable. I am weary of this, and being a libertarian, it's quite concerning.

 

So, if shooting a al-Qaeda prisoner in the head is justifiable in Iraq, why is it not justifiable in the US?

 

It probably is justifiable in the US if they're not a citizen. How is that any different than a slow...trickling...invasion? Just becuase they're not pouring onto a beach front somewhere, or any other traditional invasion technique, doesn't mean they're not invading. And we would certainly shoot them in the head if they were, wouldn't we? This is where we should be using guns and ammo - protecting our country - not attacking another country because we think they might attack us.

 

But, if they're a citizen, albeit possibly an invading terrorist operating incongnito, then that changes everything. We have a constitution that is to be respected, and our civil rights are not a light matter. Due process should be required. I do not agree with the patriot act.

 

The question to you is: does being a US citizen confer differences on how the government treats al-Qaeda members? If so, why? What is your reasoning here.

 

Well first of all, I'm suspicious of all "terrorist" claims, naturally. I have a bad feeling in my gut when I hear the media report on casualties in Iraq, where everyone killed is a "terrorist" or "insurgent". It's a gaping hole of bullshit where we can throw in any innocent person to justify murder. I'm very concerned about that.

 

That said, I've already answered this question above. If they're a non-citizen, then I have no more reason to distrust my government's word on this person than I do when they're killing them thousands of miles away on a battlefield. If they're a citizen, then anything less than due process is unacceptable.

 

Are you equating killing in combat with murder?

 

Of course.

 

The same way that Nazi and Soviet atrocities and maliciousness contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany or the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan...

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm assuming truly malicious behavior, on our part, wouldn't allow an opportunity to be defeated. With the kinds of war toys we have, we can level civilizations without setting foot on the ground. Germany couldn't do that. And the soviets weren't malicious enough to do it.

 

There are 2 ways al-Qaeda wins if we become them. Please address those ways instead of assertions of denial. As you say, we lose everything we stand for as a country and society and end up with a society that is indistinguishable from Iran or Taliban Afghanistan.

 

"Becoming them" in this context is in despite of them. We're not going to "become them" in terms of Islam. We could "become them" in that we could become racist murderers. This is indistinguishable in many ways, but Islam is what we'd have to force onto our countrymen in order for your moral poem to work.

 

Are you really trying to make the case that becoming them would include a total submission to Islam? I don't agree.

 

By your own standards, that is a loss for us but isn't it also a "win" for al-Qaeda. After all, don't we define "winning" in Iraq as establishing a government and society similar to ours?

 

Obviously no, since it would not include Islam. And since being them, includes being irrational and extreme, they will have any even more difficult time wrestling the country from them.

 

Second, as I outlined above, we make all Islam our enemy. That produces a coalition of nations that can defeat us in a conventional war,occupy us, and force us to have a Taliban government. Wouldn't you agree that al-Qaeda wins in that situation?

 

Well this proves that you agree that "becoming them" doesn't include embracing Islam, or else we wouldn't make all Islam our enemy. And again, I don't believe our malicious and despicable behavior would help them when we level civilizations from above the clouds. Maybe I'm overstating the degree of despicable behavior here, but I would think the superpower of the world gone mad in the middle east would not be of benefit to anyone.

 

Do you see the logical contradiction here? By your argument that neither any system nor the people in intelligence services can stop a terrorist attack, then why do you think we can prevent a multi-warhead attack?

 

No, what you're seeing is a balance. A balance between severity and reality. It is a severe problem and if treated as a mere nuisance, depending on "systems" to save us, we're going to get it. At the same time, reality dictates, to me anyway, that they will be inevitably successful at something some point. So we can't just sit and rely on these systems. We need to actively take terrorism quite seriously, always looking outside of the box, outside of the system.

 

Al Queda wasn't lucky, they were knowledgable of our complaceny towards security and our systems. If you pretend it's no big deal, that feeds this complacency and gaurantees a reoccurance. We need to understand that all systems are penetrable, and start behaving more unpredictably.

 

1. Even a 5 warhead attack on the USA would not "destroy" us.

 

I disagree. Strategically placed warheads could cripple the country enough to be destroyed by other, cooperating powers. WMD's and nuclear weapons are too easily attainable and manageable to marginalize the threat of thousands of cooperative racist murderers any longer.

 

2. Our current level of prevention is fairly effective since we haven't had a terrorist attack in the USA since 2001 -- 6 years. And it had been 6 years then since the last Islamic attack (also on the World Trade Center in 1995).

 

Again, I disagree. They notoriously wait between attacks as they're patient and calculative. This compliments my complacency arguments because I believe that is large part of why there's indefinite gaps between attacks.

 

Although you may be right that NOW we are active and diligent enough to prevent most attacks, pre 9/11 we were not.

[Genecks]

I'd invade them and the Jews. Afterwards, I'd take the land and not let either of them in. If they tried, they would both die. Afterwards, I think I would simply keep the land and plant some cherry blossoms. Yeah, those a pretty. Yeah, I think those would be nice. I wouldn't let anyone on, though. However, I have admired the planting techniques of the Jews in various dry lands.

 

I would be the ruler of a bunch of land. And that would be all. I assume both nations would be highly annoyed with me, but oh well.