I dont think in this day and age that we will ever fully stop or eliminate terrorism. Bombing, ground forces, and military intervention will only squash terrorism and keep them at bay but only for so long. Why do we get involved and attack certain terrorist and not all?? Well, we are going after the terror organizations that have a direct and immediate threat to our citizens and security. These ISIS fucks are using religion as a cover to do whatever they want. Their crimes against humanity rival concentration camps of WWII. You can debate anything and everything about this but my view is that they should all die. All die a death that is slow painful and violent. The same mercy should be allowed to them as they gave to their hostages and people who resisted their warped beliefs.
Everything everybody here has said about taking an aggressive stance, taking military action, invading other countries makes sense on two levels: 1) That gut instinct to be angry at an abominable act such as the subject of this thread and 2) As a way to support the military industrial complex status quo. But it doesn't make sense on any other level. Sooner or later we humans need to learn to curb our emotions or vent them in an appropriate manner. Saying, "let's drop guys out of an airplane" might help (that was kind of funny in a bizarre way and I get the emotion, bb, haha!) but doing it of course won't accomplish anything. And invading another country- we'll look what that's gotten us so far. Yeah... right.
So how about some useful ideas that might work?
I'm working on one: Hemp.
Stay tuned. :-D
(Damn, where'd the smiley button go?)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Aside from that, you yourself said it doesn't end there, we utterly defeated Japan and Germany and now generations later, and billions spent, we are still there and there is still no end in sight.
This is not Vietnam. NATO appreciates the American presence in Germany...it is valuable to remain with very little cost. Presence in Japan provides security for Asian-Pacific allies including Vietnam which amazingly now sees the US as a protector from a possible expansionist China. I am not sure why you want to see an end to these positive regional presences.
Lastly rgambs you are arguing against a solution. You are not arguing for a solution. You are arguing for the status quo or worse. Complete withdrawal is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits.
"This is not Vietnam. NATO appreciates the American presence in Germany...it is valuable to remain with very little cost. Presence in Japan provides security for Asian-Pacific allies including Vietnam which amazingly now sees the US as a protector from a possible expansionist China. I am not sure why you want to see an end to these positive regional presences.
Lastly rgambs you are arguing against a solution. You are not arguing for a solution. You are arguing for the status quo or worse. Complete withdrawal is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits."
I would like to see an end to the US outspending almost the entire rest of the developed world in war. That's why I would like to see Germany and Japan handle their own regions, as they are quite capable of doing. We have huge deficit problems, a shrinking middle class, an economy perpetually on the brink of collapse, and you are worried about NATOs soft appreciation? China is buying our country out from under us, and you are worried about protecting Vietnam from Chinese expansion?
Many would counter that you are not arguing for a solution either, only an entrenchment of current crises. Can you provide any historic evidence that this sort of action will succeed? Many would argue that you need to recognize that disaster awaits in either scenario.
This is not Vietnam. NATO appreciates the American presence in Germany...it is valuable to remain with very little cost. Presence in Japan provides security for Asian-Pacific allies including Vietnam which amazingly now sees the US as a protector from a possible expansionist China. I am not sure why you want to see an end to these positive regional presences.
Lastly rgambs you are arguing against a solution. You are not arguing for a solution. You are arguing for the status quo or worse. Complete withdrawal is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits.
I wonder if, at the onset of the Iraq War, you ever might have said "intervention is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits", as was forecast by several prominent thinkers of the world at the time. The divisiveness brought upon by a nationalist entity appearing to fight an unjust war in a region that only understands sectarian rule, was all but certain to amount to civil strife. Anger at the sect allowing entrance, anger at the USA, anger at the rest of the world (and non-Muslims most likely) for standing by and allowing America to even put one ground troop in the region.
It seems to me you come down with a heavy hand and perpetrate a notion of certain doom-and-gloom when it comes to anything pacifism-related, and cheer enthusiastically when the proposal to "obliterate all evil" (again, not the clearest of so-called road maps) is thrown around. Naturally, someone brings up Vietnam and you opt to differentiate the scenario of 'then' vs. 'now': probably because Vietnam was the living proof that pacifism can "win" a "war", if you're to insist on your binary thinking which you've been called out on but never responded to reasonably.
Oh, and by the way, if you've ever been to Vietnam, the government may see the US as a protector (I can't vouch for the authenticity of that statement, but sure, let's go for it and say it's factual for now), but the people certainly don't. The nicest thing a Vietnamese ever said to me about America (by the way, I thoroughly represent myself as a Canadian when travelling) was that he hated them previously, but doesn't want to hold a grudge because it was his parents who witnessed the suffering and not him. That was in three weeks, making talks with locals from the northernmost point (Sa Pa, by the Chinese border) to the moderate south of the country. And here's the thing about the Middle East: since you've stated that intervention is necessary, I assume that comes with a sentiment that the government is largely ineffective. This leaves the onus on the people to welcome America with open arms (or condemn them for their constant meddling - I find this more likely).
Finally, to address your point about rgambs - us on the team which proposes retreating (either partially or fully) are arguing for a solution no more or less than you are. We present a roadmap that says "our retreat will allow the balance of power to shift, righting wrongs perpetrated by American leaders, letting every single person in the region to become empowered by freedom of political or military decision-making, and allowing those feeling the heat of the furnace to embrace attempt to put out the fire". Alternatively, you present a roadmap that says "our continued presence will reduce hostility in the region through force, at economic and human cost to both America and the local innocent population (this part is true), which will lead to stability (this is the massive assumption made) and our babysitting of the region in perpetuity, so that the locals remain powerless as Papa America likes it best (this part is true)". To deny any validity to an alternative to what you have to suggest is incredibly close-minded, and naturally doesn't help your case. You also have already stated the dangers of retreat, so what about the dangers of retreat followed by re-entry into hostile zone? What's our body of evidence look like on this one? "Okay guys, we're out. Nah, fuck it, let's go back in, I hear Iraqis love America these days". Why does this hold such allure and certainty for success to you?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Germany and Japan were conventional armies led by stable governments fighting a conventional war! I don't know how you, can compare that to an insurgency which calls itself a state to affect legitimacy when it holds none of the powers of a state.
"I wonder if, at the onset of the Iraq War, you ever might have said "intervention is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits", as was forecast by several prominent thinkers of the world at the time."
Yes. I did say that but the US did intervene and opened Pandora's box. None of us can go back in time and reverse that. I just happen to think that once invasion took place the concept of abandonment is worse then the concept of staying. For the US to say "we're going to come in and wreck the place then leave" is way worse on every level then saying we are going to "wreck the place and do everything in our power to make it better". The US wrecked the place and withdrawal now becomes the second big middle finger to the local population even if it makes us all feel better as some kind of repentance for a bad decision. In terms of outcomes I actually agree with rgambs that disaster probably awaits in both scenerios. The difference is whether we will be passive observers or be active in trying to steer this towards a positive result. The world is sleepwalking towards disaster right now and unfortunately what we are doing now or even doing less as some of you advocate is not going to cut it. I wish it weren't the case but this is where we are.
Or, the US can let them take care of it on there own, WITHOUT meddling in. Without arming IS like McCain wants to do. Jordan wants to send ground troops, so be it. But let's not send our own soldiers in.
"Naturally, someone brings up Vietnam and you opt to differentiate the scenario of 'then' vs. 'now': probably because Vietnam was the living proof that pacifism can "win" a "war"."
Not sure what this means. Vietnam was living proof that pacifism can win a war? Did the North win through pacifism? The US withdrew and the North annhililated it's enemies. Look at South Korea...it is the way it is because of the US presence.
"Naturally, someone brings up Vietnam and you opt to differentiate the scenario of 'then' vs. 'now': probably because Vietnam was the living proof that pacifism can "win" a "war"."
Not sure what this means. Vietnam was living proof that pacifism can win a war? Did the North win through pacifism? The US withdrew and the North annhililated it's enemies. Look at South Korea...it is the way it is because of the US presence.
And was the US withdrawal not a pacification attempt which lead to local parties fighting it out themselves and bringing about stability eventually?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
No. I'm not sure leaving the South Vietnamese to the slaughter would be considered a pacification attempt. It's a decision stating that this battle in the fight against communism is failing and that it should be fought in a different arena. Nixon goes to China. US arms the mujuhadeen. US funds fighting against the Sadinistas. US spends heavily on missile defense etc. all while maintaining a permanent presence in Germany and Japan. Vietnam was one battlefield in a prolonged global war until the fall of the berlin wall. A Cost vs Benefit analysis of vietnam showed it to be a war worth ending but never was it considered a pacification attempt.
Vietnam was not a war, it was a policing action. We still think of ourselves as world police. What gives us that right? Why do we keep sticking our noses into other peoples business when we haven't solved all of our won problems? It's a control issue on a massive scale. Like any personality disorder, the more we do it, the worse our condition becomes.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's not about "right" it's about duty. World peace is a wonderful ideal but it is not man's natural state. If we don't maintain order then chaos reigns. Unfortunate but true.
Comments
It ends with victory or defeat
So how about some useful ideas that might work?
I'm working on one: Hemp.
Stay tuned. :-D
(Damn, where'd the smiley button go?)
What's not the only way, JWP?
No worries.
But oh my, this got mentioned elsewhere as well? A lot of heavy emotions on these threads lately!
I think there could be an end. But that end would require an incredible act of evil.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"It ends with victory or defeat"
And is there no collateral damage that is too great? What if it takes decades and costs millions of lives? Have we learned NOTHING from Vietnam?
Lastly rgambs you are arguing against a solution. You are not arguing for a solution. You are arguing for the status quo or worse. Complete withdrawal is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-06/obama-s-middle-east-fantasy-in-the-national-security-strategy
Lastly rgambs you are arguing against a solution. You are not arguing for a solution. You are arguing for the status quo or worse. Complete withdrawal is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits."
I would like to see an end to the US outspending almost the entire rest of the developed world in war. That's why I would like to see Germany and Japan handle their own regions, as they are quite capable of doing. We have huge deficit problems, a shrinking middle class, an economy perpetually on the brink of collapse, and you are worried about NATOs soft appreciation? China is buying our country out from under us, and you are worried about protecting Vietnam from Chinese expansion?
Many would counter that you are not arguing for a solution either, only an entrenchment of current crises. Can you provide any historic evidence that this sort of action will succeed?
Many would argue that you need to recognize that disaster awaits in either scenario.
I wonder if, at the onset of the Iraq War, you ever might have said "intervention is a fair option but recognize that disaster awaits", as was forecast by several prominent thinkers of the world at the time. The divisiveness brought upon by a nationalist entity appearing to fight an unjust war in a region that only understands sectarian rule, was all but certain to amount to civil strife. Anger at the sect allowing entrance, anger at the USA, anger at the rest of the world (and non-Muslims most likely) for standing by and allowing America to even put one ground troop in the region.
It seems to me you come down with a heavy hand and perpetrate a notion of certain doom-and-gloom when it comes to anything pacifism-related, and cheer enthusiastically when the proposal to "obliterate all evil" (again, not the clearest of so-called road maps) is thrown around. Naturally, someone brings up Vietnam and you opt to differentiate the scenario of 'then' vs. 'now': probably because Vietnam was the living proof that pacifism can "win" a "war", if you're to insist on your binary thinking which you've been called out on but never responded to reasonably.
Oh, and by the way, if you've ever been to Vietnam, the government may see the US as a protector (I can't vouch for the authenticity of that statement, but sure, let's go for it and say it's factual for now), but the people certainly don't. The nicest thing a Vietnamese ever said to me about America (by the way, I thoroughly represent myself as a Canadian when travelling) was that he hated them previously, but doesn't want to hold a grudge because it was his parents who witnessed the suffering and not him. That was in three weeks, making talks with locals from the northernmost point (Sa Pa, by the Chinese border) to the moderate south of the country. And here's the thing about the Middle East: since you've stated that intervention is necessary, I assume that comes with a sentiment that the government is largely ineffective. This leaves the onus on the people to welcome America with open arms (or condemn them for their constant meddling - I find this more likely).
Finally, to address your point about rgambs - us on the team which proposes retreating (either partially or fully) are arguing for a solution no more or less than you are. We present a roadmap that says "our retreat will allow the balance of power to shift, righting wrongs perpetrated by American leaders, letting every single person in the region to become empowered by freedom of political or military decision-making, and allowing those feeling the heat of the furnace to embrace attempt to put out the fire". Alternatively, you present a roadmap that says "our continued presence will reduce hostility in the region through force, at economic and human cost to both America and the local innocent population (this part is true), which will lead to stability (this is the massive assumption made) and our babysitting of the region in perpetuity, so that the locals remain powerless as Papa America likes it best (this part is true)". To deny any validity to an alternative to what you have to suggest is incredibly close-minded, and naturally doesn't help your case. You also have already stated the dangers of retreat, so what about the dangers of retreat followed by re-entry into hostile zone? What's our body of evidence look like on this one? "Okay guys, we're out. Nah, fuck it, let's go back in, I hear Iraqis love America these days". Why does this hold such allure and certainty for success to you?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Yes. I did say that but the US did intervene and opened Pandora's box. None of us can go back in time and reverse that. I just happen to think that once invasion took place the concept of abandonment is worse then the concept of staying. For the US to say "we're going to come in and wreck the place then leave" is way worse on every level then saying we are going to "wreck the place and do everything in our power to make it better". The US wrecked the place and withdrawal now becomes the second big middle finger to the local population even if it makes us all feel better as some kind of repentance for a bad decision. In terms of outcomes I actually agree with rgambs that disaster probably awaits in both scenerios. The difference is whether we will be passive observers or be active in trying to steer this towards a positive result. The world is sleepwalking towards disaster right now and unfortunately what we are doing now or even doing less as some of you advocate is not going to cut it. I wish it weren't the case but this is where we are.
Not sure what this means. Vietnam was living proof that pacifism can win a war? Did the North win through pacifism? The US withdrew and the North annhililated it's enemies. Look at South Korea...it is the way it is because of the US presence.
And was the US withdrawal not a pacification attempt which lead to local parties fighting it out themselves and bringing about stability eventually?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's not about "right" it's about duty. World peace is a wonderful ideal but it is not man's natural state. If we don't maintain order then chaos reigns. Unfortunate but true.
(Ha...i said duty)