03-08-2006, 06:43 AM | #1 (permalink) |
High Honorary Junkie
Location: Tri-state.
|
What are we going to do about terrorism?
I'm watching "The War Within," an incredible film about these fucking terrorists. What are we supposed to do? If the current administration's ways aren't working, what would you suggest *for the current administration* to do, since we have Bush in office until 2008?
|
03-08-2006, 06:50 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Registered User
|
It's a bit late now, but if we'd quietly infiltrated their organisations and ruthlessly killed off their leaders, rather than waging a brutal, indiscriminate, clumsy, noisy and arguably illegal war, we might have sorted it all out by now.
Instead we had to go romping about, stirring up hatred in the Arab world, exactly as Bin Ladin hoped we would. |
03-08-2006, 07:11 AM | #4 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
My opinion has been that we should treat it like what it is... a criminal act. As with any policy on crime there needs to be a two headed approach.
1) Policing and prevention 2) Education You can't solve any area that is plagued with crime without doing both of these things in concert. Some would argue that that is exactly what is being done right now, I say that mobilizing the military (the world's largest) to chase down criminals merely legitimizes their cause and justifies their belief that the US (and it's allies) are imperialist powers. It didn't help that the reason for going to Iraq has changed nearly as much as the wind.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
03-08-2006, 07:20 AM | #5 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
03-08-2006, 07:26 AM | #7 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
How does one go to war with said leader when he is not affiliated with any nation? How does one invade or go to war with a tactic?
Might as well go to war with the Schlieffen Plan. The instances of terrorism within the borders of the west have been quite few (especially with in the US). Police your own borders. Work to educate the world. Diplomacy takes longer than a bomb but it works better in the long run.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
03-08-2006, 07:27 AM | #8 (permalink) |
Comedian
Location: Use the search button
|
This may not be the most politically correct statement, but here goes:
I would create a team of operatives, their sole task would be to hunt down terrorists and kill them with extreme prejudice. A panel of judges (identities secret) would have veto power on the assasinations. The entire international intelligence community resources would be brought to bear. These guys would be hard-core, extreme killers. Snipers, assaulters, demolitions, the whole gambit. We would never know about them. They would leave no calling card. We would not parade them as heroes, nor mention thier existence. If caught, we would deny everything. And they would be well funded. Very well compensated.
__________________
3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis. |
03-08-2006, 07:30 AM | #9 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
You have an oversimplistic view of the whole situation Nezmot, if you think ending our war with Al Qaeda would be as easy as putting people on the inside and killing them is a means we haven't tried, then I don't know what to tell you.
The fact is this is not just a group of you average criminals. There are several thousands of these "criminals", who are often concentrated in one region, and are heavily armed, that's why conventional military means are waged. If we want to win this war, then we have to take off the gloves, swordfish the shit out of them, be more ruthless then they are. There are no quiet means of dealing with these people, they don't care for compromise, and at any rate any compromise that could be achieved is counter to our interests, so why even consider it?
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
03-08-2006, 07:49 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
I think diplomacy is the long term 'solution' to terrorism. But diplomacy won't work on it's own. That's why we need a group that finds them, evaluates their threat level, and either eliminates them or takes them in for questioning. |
|
03-08-2006, 08:12 AM | #11 (permalink) |
Registered User
|
Organised like what? With time, patience and enough good people, we could have flooded the 'training camps' in Afghanistan with our own people and built up a reliable intelligence network, one that would tell us what we have no hope of finding out now - for the reasons you describe.
Do you remember the most recent collapse of the Northern Irish assembly - and why that happened? It turned out that the IRA's second in command was a British agent. No wonder the IRA isn't a sizable threat any more. The British knew everything there was to know about them. That's the kind of tactic we should have used against 'The Terrorists'. We get in, we wait (foiling attacks as they are planned) and, once we know everything we need to - we perform the coup de grace and finish them off once and for all. |
03-08-2006, 08:53 AM | #12 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Criminals are motivated by greed or in some cases mental illness. They KNOW they are criminals, they are just out for themselves. These are not the motives we are facing. We are not just fighting 'terrorists' but the governments that support them. Are you going to 'educate' Iran, Saddam, the Taliban? We are not fighting criminals, we are fighting a culture. A culture based around centralized power that regards being a homicide bomber the highest honor one can do. Mothers want their children to grow up to be living bombs (I'd be happy to show you pictures but can not on TFP). Perhaps we should arrest them for aiding and abetting? Until the culture of these regions change, there will be no lasting peace, and until the governments are changed their will be no change in the culture. You don’t' do that with cops.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
03-08-2006, 09:03 AM | #13 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
03-08-2006, 09:07 AM | #14 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
the problem is obvious: the category "terrorist" itself, which is little more than a political meme the function of which is to strip any trace of rational motivation behind a given action in order to set up precisely the types of responses you see above, mostly from folk who position on the right--the cromwell move: kill em all and let god sort em out.
"terrorism" says nothing--can say nothing--analytically about causes/motivations. it does the opposite so it can do and does nothing to shape any coherent thinking about responses. if you assume it a legitimate signifer, then all kinds of bizarre edifices of chanelled revenge fantasy can take shape--including ustwo's surreal recapitulation of the huntington thesis---which one would assume had died out by now---but no, not in the jurassic park of outmoded conservative ideologies that constitues the big tent of right politics. back to the op: who is "we"? why are there no questions being raised about the notion of "terrorism"? on what possible basis does anyone assume that the cateogry is other than ideological, and that in the worst, most reductive sense of the term? if one could impute irony to the responses here so far, they could be read as a kind of immanent critique of the category itself--look what happens if you take it seriously---all kinds of laughable outcomes. maybe i'll do that....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
03-08-2006, 09:11 AM | #15 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
03-08-2006, 09:14 AM | #16 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Ustwo...
I know you think that way. I know a lot of people think that way. That paradigm hasn't worked in the past and it isn't working now. Bombing civilians and invading their countries does nothing but encourage more suicide bombers. Look at it this way, what if there was a nation more powerful than the US. Let's imagine that they invade the US. How many on this board would be willing to die to get rid of the invaders? Given the rhetoric that get's thrown about, I would hope this it would be a high number. Yes, there are cultural differences. That's where the education part comes in. That's where diplomacy comes in. You have to remember that these people strapping bombs to themselves are not living in a vacuum. There are tangible reasons why they do this. It isn't because they are evil. It's because they believe the same things (rightly or wrongly) that the fictional TFP members in the invaded US above believe. They are protecting their own.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
03-08-2006, 09:22 AM | #17 (permalink) |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
This thread clearly illustrates the difference in thinking about and dealing with terrorism with respect to the right's view and the lefts. Ustwo's post is a perfect exaple of how the right views terrorism and the war on it, while roach's post illustrates how those on the left view the same problem. The rest are somewhere in the middle, as other posts in this thread show.
I guess I really don't have much to say other than to point out the obvious. Oh, that and I think Ustwo is right. But then thats my Jurassic park logic working out for ya.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
03-08-2006, 09:44 AM | #18 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
03-08-2006, 10:30 AM | #19 (permalink) | |
Rookie
|
Quote:
__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips |
|
03-08-2006, 10:39 AM | #20 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
03-08-2006, 11:13 AM | #21 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Obviously there is no justification for killing civilians. Fight and kill other soldiers all you want, but when you sink to the level of depravity that is the targeting -- the organized, institutional targeting -- of unarmed citizens, you place yourself in a mathematically unwinnable position. It is the criminal world moral equivalency to child molestation. There might be motivation (religious/sexual), but there is no justification in a world that functions under systems of secular law and order. It is a dirty game to be sure, and all involved surely have blood on their hands. Yet people are people, power is power, and the world is the world. There is strong and weak, and the strong cannot allow the weak to run the show. It is the lions who rule the jungle, not the hyenas. When has it ever been otherwise? In saying this, I am not calling for their extermination, but for their rehabilitation. And I empathize, because they need help assimilating. So, they are getting help - they are getting 21st century shock therapy. I am hopeful. But first, they need to relinquish their delusions of grandeur and visions of Saladin and get back to work. They need to appreciate the benefits of free trade and open societies. They need to realize the power inherent in the word "compromise". They need to be willing to make deals with the major players. As we see, there is simply no tolerance anymore for the psychotic malcontent lurking in the shadows. I am hopeful. |
|
03-08-2006, 11:25 AM | #22 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
I would say that their actions are as evil as anyone who takes a life to forward a political cause. This is especially true when bombing civilians. Sadly neither side of this "war on terror" has hands free of blood.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
03-08-2006, 11:45 AM | #23 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Lemme get this straight.... Two days ago, I tried to get a discussion going here by bringing attention to issues that contradict "signs" that there is a true commitment by the leadership of this country to actually conduct the "War on Terror" in an earnest, honest, way that does not defy "common sense".
I started a new thread here, with the core issue....one that was akin to a punch in the gut for me, when I read it, and there was no response from anyone here. Now, I observe the response to an OP on this thread that offers no information, yet it prompts discussion. I've wondered what it will take to get it through my head that the "theme" on this forum seems much more aligned to the theme of the entire site. The priority seems to be to promote and engage in "chit chat". "Informed" and "discussion" don't seem to require any linkage, and this thread is a "poster child" as an example of why I don't feel like I fit in here, and maybe an indicator of why the country is led by such mediocre and abysmal folks. Consider that one of the two men who Randy Cunningham fingered as bribing him, a man who the second "Cunningham briber", Mitchell Wade of MZM (Wade just copped a plea in Federal Court, this week), has been reported to be the "mentor" of his "protege", the now convicted Mr. Wade, HAS NOT EVEN BEEN INDICTED! His name is Brent Wilkes. Wilkes best friend is Dusty Foggo, promoted to executive director of CIA, the #3 position in that agency, in Nov., 2004. This is important enough to expose you to it...one more time. According to "Congressional Quarterly", main stream news organization with <a href="http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=about_mission">the most reporters posted to Capitol Hill....125....</a> The 9/11 Commission "intelligence reform" recommendations were supposedly "implemented", yet we have this report, excerpted from CQ.... If... <h3>They're Evil !!!</h3>... Then.... WTF is this? Why wasn't Cunningham sentenced to death for selling out the rest of us, during "wartime", for his own, selfish gain ??? Why is Dusty Foggo still in his position, instead of being relieved of duty, pending the outcome of the new investigation at CIA? Get real....people. You're just repeating the talking points that you've been fed in speeches of the Crawford "brush clearer"! Quote:
The "terror" is the looting of the U.S. Treasury and the mountain of debt that we will leave as a legacy to our descendants, to finance false "hype" that, in response, sends the cash to the old rich, "connected" white men. There is a good chance that both Foggo and Wilkes "are CIA", and that Wilkes is actually "untouchable". The "fog" that the American public is immersed in is evident in the posts here, and the penchant for...when given the choice, to engage in "chit chat" instead of being interested in discussing real reports of the contradictions in what the U.S. government is actually doing to fight "the war". I know....I Know.... I'm just "pointing fingers"...I'm "too partisan"... that must be it! Last edited by host; 03-08-2006 at 11:50 AM.. |
|
03-08-2006, 12:06 PM | #24 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
I said: "the organized, institutional targeting of unarmed citizens..." The Coalition is not involved in organized, institutional, pre-planned attacks on ordinary citizens. The advance and development of Smart Weapons could further characterize this ideology. The Bad Guys of course do not share this same ideology. They DO methodically plan out and kill civilians. There is a vital, critical, decisive difference to be made, I believe. And I am fully aware of the penchant of the anti-war brigade to overlook this difference or rationalize it away. Reconstruction/Reformation = Good Terrorism = Bad Last edited by powerclown; 03-08-2006 at 12:13 PM.. |
|
03-08-2006, 12:20 PM | #26 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Powerclown... I can see the difference. I just don't see how you can possibly go to war with it.
They are not a nation. They are a relatively small group of people. Their efforts to do damage in the West are quite limited (if not spectacular). And yet, we have mobilized a couple of the largest armed forces in the world to combat them. Altered our own laws so we can be more like the repressive states they appear to want to create (how's that for irony)? The only ones who are benefitting from a massive military response to this are weapons and logistics contractors (oh and terrorist recruiters). I am glad to hear that you have hope for their rehabilitation. I share that hope. In fact, if all we had to talk about was how things were progressing in Afghanistan I would be happy. That was justifiable military action. It is the idiocy of Iraq that clouds the issue.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
03-08-2006, 12:31 PM | #27 (permalink) | |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
Quote:
And this mess about altering our own laws, please point out which laws they were, because honsestly, I don't feel like I live in the repressive states they appear to want to create. I feel as freeright now as I did in 1999. I think we are on the right path to winning this war on terror.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
|
03-08-2006, 12:31 PM | #28 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
How many people do you think we are dealing with? Do you think they are getting help from other governments?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
03-08-2006, 12:37 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
03-08-2006, 12:39 PM | #30 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Excuse me, Powerclown... (This seems important enough to break my promise to myself not to enage you...after you did not afford me the courtesy of a response on this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...la#post1942213 to my post in a discussion that you initiated...)
I am wondering what opinion that you have advanced on these threads, concerning the "war on terror", has turned out to be the accurate "take" about how events would "play out"? Was it your "take" on WMD in Iraq, or "Good things happening in Iraq" ? Please stop taunting me, when you have no answers, and no outrage about these reports. (The POTUS and the congressional leaders, in a "time of war", that you ardently and obviously, totally believe to be as they SAY it is... have been reported to be involved with the two bribers of Randy Cunningham... and they refuse to talk about. Signsonsandiego "broke" the Cunningham corruption story, it's own reporter did the investigative work to expose the corruption (treason ?????) that the congress and government investigatory agencies ignored !) Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-08-2006, 01:08 PM | #31 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
edit: host, I apologize for the hasty, patronizing response.
Please understand that I have no great love for Bush. I assure you I see his shortcomings as clearly as his fiercest critic. I could go into the minutiae of why I disagree with the findings in some of your reports and articles, but I won't waste your time. We've all gone over the issue here ad nauseum, and the basis of course lies in diametrically opposed core ideologies. I'm sure you are aware that I and others of my political viewpoint can put together an assemblage of materials gleaned from the internet to support our opinions just as you do. There is no shortage of material of course -- simply a matter of time/energy expenditure. On one hand I understand your frustration, but really, I believe this to be self-inflicted - given your time and experience in these forums. Last edited by powerclown; 03-08-2006 at 09:32 PM.. |
03-08-2006, 02:17 PM | #32 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
so wait---let me see if i understand this non-discussion correctly.
what stevo is saying in no. 17 is that faced with the choice between actually thinking about how issues are framed and simply following the framing that exists--no matter how obviously inadequate, no matter how dubious---the choice he--and the other conservatives who posted thereafter--would make is to follow. in another thread, stevo at least laid out the basis for this--a kind of voluntarism according to which the taking of a stance mattered above all else. in that context, i could almost respect the position he outlined--but here it seems that the need to feel resolute works to obviate any possibility of being resolute in a coherent way. i woudl think that this might pose problems...but apparently not. go figure. presumably the rationale for this particular display of resoluteness at the expense of coherence lay in the sad fact that the right is now in power. from this, the only conclusion i can draw is that because the right is in power, and because conservatives identify, for some reason, with the ideology for which the administration stands, then for them it follows that whatever the administration says or does is necessarily coherent, necessarily good. but then i started thinking about what happens in this space, and it began to occur to me that maybe folk from the right who post here are trying out extreme versions of their politics here in a space that offers no pressure on them to be coherent or think independently or consider what they are doing and why they are doing it. maybe these views are not viable in their everyday lives. maybe the 3-d people they talk to in thsi way would laugh at them if they expressed these views in real life. in here, laughing is confined to something that happens around the keyboard, during the act of typing, and does not translate into posts. so maybe they can pretend no-one laughs. they would be wrong, but who really cares? or maybe this is a space that gives folk the chance to intellectually cross-dress, to try out the wardrobe of total, unreflective partisan loyalty and see how they look in it. or maybe the point is an exercize in sustained submissiveness. maybe there is a charge to be had from it. at least these speculations would explain the adherence to this kind of ridiculous "logic" you see from the right in this thread. it certainly cannot be based on any standard of coherence. i understand host's exasperation. i find this kind exasperating as well. that is why i am checking out of this thread. it has become idiotic, and will no doubt remain idiotic. worse, the critiques that would obtain have been made over and over and over again and--once again---conservatives here react by acting as though nothing had happened and by repeating the same old same old, using the same old kind of claims. they appear to refuse to even consider problems with their positions. perhaps this follows from the politics they imagine that i or anyone else who would criticize ther views necessarily would hold, and they consider anything coming from such a position to be a priori wrong. nice. i am not sure what this is, but it is clear what it is not: it is not a discussion. it is not a debate. it is not worth the time or effort to participate in.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
03-08-2006, 02:47 PM | #34 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
Hows this:
We watch carefully the actions of known terrorists, and wait until they strike (yes people will die, but they will regardless). Once we know who commited the terrorist act, we kill them, and follow the line to everyone with any assosiation with the aforementioned terrorists until anyone with the slightest tie to them is dead. Rinse ...repeat. Ten years down the road I guarantee there will be far fewer people willing to "lend a hand" to these people. As for known terrorist states....ever heard of a blockade.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
03-08-2006, 02:51 PM | #35 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Thats not very progressive of you.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
03-08-2006, 03:12 PM | #36 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
A blockade is an act of war Tecoyah, why not just go all out?
I find it dispicable the sense moral relativism people infer in regards to terrorists, or better yet cowardly sociopaths. Seditious doctrine applies, and that's why we won't win this "war".
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
03-08-2006, 03:42 PM | #37 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Well we have to star with why they want to kill us. Is it because they hate freedom? Not really. Are they evil doers? Absurd. Is it because our government and corporations are interfering with their country to their detriment? Well duh.
Now we need to figure out what would make them stop. We can try to hunt them down like we've been doing. No one besides individuals with very high security clearence know if thet's been successful up to this point, and based on information that is leaked or available to the general public, it's really not going well. On top of that, we are seeing the slow erosion of civil liberties and the disconnect from our international allies. Seems like it's not working. So what else can we do? Well, we can cave and withdraw all military and economic interests from the Middle East. Does this mean the terrorists win? Well, yeah but so do we. Our dependence on foreign oil has cost us 500 billion(?) and the lives of thousands of soldiers just in the past 4 years alone. Not only that, but we have yet to see any real benifits from our investment (besides corporiate profits soaring, and the same corporations cutting jobs). So we basically set up Iraq and leave. Not only do we leave Iraq, but we leave EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. There is no reason for a democratic nation to have military bases in hundreds of countries. So we've pulled out all our troops...now what? We ask Afghanistan if we can go in and get Bin Laden. We ask for the support of the Afghani government, and in return we forgive their debt and give them aid. I'll bet we'd find him inside a week. When we extradite him to the US legally, we try him on international TV. We give him a fair trial (none of this holding without trial garbage). While I persoanlly don't think he's responsible for 9/11, I do think he has been responsible for many bombings and attacks, and thus needs to be brought to justice. I'll bet anyone $5 that if this were to come to pass, global terrorism would drop off sharply, and terrorism on our own soil would drop to nothing. |
03-08-2006, 04:20 PM | #38 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Will that is an very ideal approach to the situation, one that however ideal, lacks any comprehension of power politics, foreign geo-political relations, or future vision for a nation that is at the current moment the sole hyper power. Again it has several over stated comments, or even fallicies in regards to civil liberties, the reality that nations, especially highly industrialized are run on oil, further that point to geo-political capital as other nations emerge (such as China which in 15 years time will account for 75% of the worlds consumption of oil), and how all of that effects the economy. On top of that it is greatly ignorant of the past reasons for military bases, as well as vision for the future. Having strategic military bases is like a condom, where you would rather have them and not need them, then need them and not have them.
As far as those people determined terrorists as not being evil? I find it absurd that you find it absurd. I call on your bet, and will side bet you that if your vision went down America would be a crippled shade of the nation it is now and has been in the past; although from reading your post here and other places, I don't doubt that you wouldn't want that.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
03-08-2006, 04:27 PM | #39 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Getting back on topic though, the major problem of the war on terror, like the war in Iraq, is that it has become entirely too political and it has severely hamstrung the military. I don't find myself offbase saying that it is almost a necessity to have lawyers embedded with the troops just to make sure we are operating according the anti-war, anti-America peoples wishes. In war you act swift and you act hard, that's why assholes like Al-Sadr, Zarqawi, towns like Fallujah, are really fucking up our shit, because people seem to have no concept of reality in that the bold stroke wins the battle. America loves it hegemony on the cheap, idealism and ambition without balls and grit!
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
Tags |
terrorism |
|
|