Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Manedwolf on December 10, 2008, 02:28:07 PM
-
If you know anything about the psyche of extremists, they will see this as weakness on our part. And they will be emboldened to attack in the US.
WASHINGTON, (AFP) – President-elect Barack Obama plans to give "a major address" in an Islamic capital soon after taking office as he seeks to mend America's image in the Muslim world, a Chicago Tribune interview said.
"I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular," Obama said in the interview published late Tuesday on the Tribune's website.
Obama promised an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."
How about those who chant while beheading Westerners?
Personally, I would prefer "Stop blowing sh__ up, or we'll destroy everything you're fighting for. Because we can. We're holding back. We could turn the goddamned Khyber Pass into a glass trough if we wanted to, but we're holding back. Keep this crap up, and we'll hit you from so high you can't even see the goddamned plane." Oh well.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081210/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamadiplomacyislam_081210083044 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081210/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamadiplomacyislam_081210083044)
We're going to be seen as weak. We're going to be seen as weak, and we're going to get hit again, probably with a bioweapon or a nuke. In the US.
Goddamit it. :mad:
-
I don't recall FDR or Churchill ever giving a speech in Berlin.
-
I don't recall FDR or Churchill ever giving a speech in Berlin.
But Chamberlain proudly proclaimed "Peace for Our Time" after the Munich Conference...
-
But Chamberlain proudly proclaimed "Peace for Our Time" after the Munich Conference...
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use the appropriate image macro here.
-
What Obama wants is collectivism larded with ecumenical religious overtones. This will cheer foreigners everywhere; it will take a bit longer to sell to the Americans who once upon a time believed in individual liberty.
-
This was just so incredibly asinine to announce this. Hillary is probably having a fit, she might be cold, but even SHE knows how stupid this is. Intelligence analysts everywhere are probably facepalming.
If he backs off on this now, it's an insult, and if he goes through with it, it demonstrates how weak we are.
If this sort of horrific blunder is going to happen before he even takes office, the war is going to be over here before Obama Year One is even finished. To the mindset of the people we are fighting, he might as well have just said "We are too weak. We must seek a truce with you, because you are beating us." ...and they give no quarter. They will advance.
I can't believe this. Stupid, stupid, STUPID.
-
Well, he's got the "re-boot" part right.
And we can start with just The Boot.
-
Would Baghdad qualify as " . . . an Islamic capital . . . " for the purposes of this speech?
Might be OK then, if he says the right things.
I'm virtually certain he won't . . . wherever he speaks.
-
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use the appropriate image macro here.
PM with link atleast.
-
If you know anything about the psyche of extremists, they will see this as weakness on our part. And they will be emboldened to attack in the US.
So if extremists can be emboldened by something, we shouldn't do it? If they are emboldened by threats against them should we offer a truce? If they are emboldened by battle should we not fight them?
Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?
he might as well have just said "We are too weak. We must seek a truce with you, because you are beating us." ...and they give no quarter. They will advance.
Did you miss this part of the article, or leave it out to make your little rant easier?
"The message I want to send is that we will be unyielding in stamping out the terrorist extremism we saw in Mumbai"
-
President-elect Barack Obama plans to give "a major address" in an Islamic capital soon after taking office as he seeks to mend America's image in the Muslim world,
So, he's going to Detroit?
-
So if extremists can be emboldened by something, we shouldn't do it? If they are emboldened by threats against them should we offer a truce? If they are emboldened by battle should we not fight them?
Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?
Did you miss this part of the article, or leave it out to make your little rant easier?
You don't get it at all.
They respect one thing. Strength.
If we kill them, they back off.
If we act weak, they go for the throat. The only thing that emboldens them is weakness.
Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?
We shouldn't. We should be killing them as quickly and efficiently and ruthlessly as possible, until they decide it's a bad idea to continue, that they are going to lose everything if they keep it up.
Tell me what happens if you run away from a wild predator instead of standing your ground, walking towards it, or using a weapon to shoot at it, or swing at it?
If you do the latter, it'll usually back off. If you run, you're prey. It will run you down, knock you down, and go for your throat.
That's what we are fighting.
-
Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?
Because America isn't fighting ALL the Muslims? Because many nations with Muslim populations are ALLIED to the United States?
-
He should go to Mecca—and stay there.
-
So, he's going to Detroit?
touche!
-
They respect one thing. Strength.
If this were true they never would have attacked us in the first place - we have strength. They cannot destroy us by conventional means, they need to provoke us into overextending ourselves and turning our allies and neutral parties against us. We could easily destroy them (along with millions of innocents) if we were as ruthless as them, but we haven't and we shouldn't because we are supposedly better than them.
If we kill them, they back off.
If we kill them, they are dead. If we kill the bad people without pissing off the good people we can win. We're doing a decent job of killing bad people, but it doesn't do much good if you create two more terrorists for every one you kill. I'm guessing you're not a believer in winning hearts & minds, but you think we can kill our way out of everything. This isn't conventional warfare and collateral damage results in more recruits for the extremists. No one is saying we don't need to fight, it's just that we need to be smart about it. Talking to those neutral parties isn't a sign of weakness, it's a strategic move.
If we act weak, they go for the throat. The only thing that emboldens them is weakness.
What exactly is "our throat" in this discussion? Do we have some weak point that they could attack, but are holding back on? If they can attack us they will, it doesn't matter to them whether or not we say nice or mean things. However, speaking to the people who are not anti-American can have a positive effect and actually help us win. Explaining to the people that usually only hear their propaganda that we are not the great Satan, is in no way saying "We are too weak." It's saying "We are not your enemy, they are."
-
If this were true they never would have attacked us in the first place - we have strength. They cannot destroy us by conventional means, they need to provoke us into overextending ourselves and turning our allies and neutral parties against us. We could easily destroy them (along with millions of innocents) if we were as ruthless as them, but we haven't and we shouldn't because we are supposedly better than them.
Yes, we have strength, but didn't show it until after 9/11. We've been attacked repeatedly over the last nearly 30 years, but never responded with anything remotely resembling a show of force. They assumed that we were a paper tiger.
If we kill them, they are dead. If we kill the bad people without pissing off the good people we can win. We're doing a decent job of killing bad people, but it doesn't do much good if you create two more terrorists for every one you kill. I'm guessing you're not a believer in winning hearts & minds, but you think we can kill our way out of everything. This isn't conventional warfare and collateral damage results in more recruits for the extremists. No one is saying we don't need to fight, it's just that we need to be smart about it. Talking to those neutral parties isn't a sign of weakness, it's a strategic move.
I guess their successful recruiting efforts are the reason they're resorting to using children mentally retarded people for suicide bombings. Also, conventional warfare results in collateral damage as well.
What exactly is "our throat" in this discussion? Do we have some weak point that they could attack, but are holding back on? If they can attack us they will, it doesn't matter to them whether or not we say nice or mean things.
We've been taking down Al Queda so well that they're not as formidable as they were just a couple of years ago, and less able to reach us here at home. I'd say that going for their throat has worked.
-
I'd say that going for their throat has worked.
Well, you're just an eeevil warmonger conservative uneducated hick from flyover country. You don't understand the nuance and subtleties of international relations as well as your betters understand them. Obama's enlightened speech in the heart of Islam will show you the right way to protect the US. He'll make the rest of the world love us by telling the rest of the world how awful America is.
-
Well, you're just an eeevil warmonger conservative uneducated hick from flyover country. You don't understand the nuance and subtleties of international relations as well as your betters understand them. Obama's enlightened speech in the heart of Islam will show you the right way to protect the US. He'll make the rest of the world love us by telling the rest of the world how awful America is.
And this is related to the discussion how?
We can go for the terrorists/bad guys while being respectful to the feelings of those of our allies that share our faith.
-
I don't recall FDR or Churchill ever giving a speech in Berlin.
That is because they were leaders, not just callow machine politicians.
-
That is because they were leaders, not just callow machine politicians.
Obama is not going to be giving a speech in Damascus, is he?. He will give a speech in a Muslim country friendly to the US.
-
We don't need a war on terror, we need a war on being terrified.
We appear to be more afraid of them than they are of us. I don't mean our military; I mean our population and especially our political class. I'm tired of hearing about the inevitable WMD attack on our population centers. Put them on notice; put the fear of [your choice] into them. Even "shock and awe" really wasn't, as we've learned five years later. We started out fighting a war and segue'd all too quickly into "spreading democracy" and "nation-building," rather prematurely in the minds of many. If we think we've won the high ground in this war I think we are kidding ourselves.
I maintain this is about two ideologies: one built on reason and the individual, the other on unreason and the collective. We might co-exist but we will never really be friends.
-
The premise upon which this thread is based is faulty-in order to judge Obama's knowledge of the "psyche of extremists", we'd need some measure of it in the first place.
Asserting "they only respect strength" is obviously not sufficient to explain 'the psyche of extremists". They have killed more Americans since September 11 2001 than on that murderous day. They have also conducted major attacks against US allies in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the terrorists had simply hid and never raised a hand again after the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, this thesis might make sense, but it's hard to see how force can bend all the terrorists when they've actually committed more terrorism since the wars began than before.
-
Terrorism is difficult when the target is 8000 miles away. Going to where they are provides incentives for them to act locally.
What hasn't happened is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. It's more like trying to dismantle a wasp's nest with your bare hands. You'll get stung, but it will be harder for wasps to get around and sting others.
For what it's worth, the situation seems far too complicated to be distilled to a handy soundbite. As much as I'd like to say "They respect only strength," I think shootinstudent has a point in that such a statement is not enough to fully describe their behavior, even though it may help.
At this point, it looks like Obama is going to act the way he said he was going to in his campaign: He wants to try a more diplomatic approach. I suppose time will tell whether or not this was a good move. Unfortunately, the proof that it is a bad move would be thousands of dead Americans. It would be great if simply going to Muslim countries and talking to the people (who aren't terrorists) made those intent on terrorism less so. I worry that it will not, that the terrorists will simply call this another "attempt" by "America" to "subjugate their people", and that other shifts in policy might indirectly result in another catastrophe.
I mean, does anyone expect bin Laden or whoever to post a video the day after, saying, "It looks like the imperialist American scum have acquiesced to our wishes for independence, so no more terror, guys, seriously." I suspect the video would have much more of the tone I stated above, namely, that "President Obama's attempt to sugarcoat the subjugation... etc."
Terrorist groups have myriad motivations and rationalizations for what they do. Some might want America completely out of the Middle East. Others might want to see the end of Israel. The motivations will be as numerous as the groups. Unfortunately, Obama's policy results in neither of these demands being met. What reason, then, would a terrorist group with such a goal have for abandoning terror tactics? I argue that a speech by Obama, even a really good one, that has the people cheering, gives these terror groups no reason to give up.
Sorry about the length.
-
What a hypocrite. Everyone knows the Islamists cling to their religion and guns.
-
Obama is not going to be giving a speech in Damascus, is he?. He will give a speech in a Muslim country friendly to the US.
That actually narrows it down quite a bit. I'll say Turkey . . . but after that? Bahrain? Qatar? Kuwait? Maybe Indonesia . . .
Having a spot of difficulty coming up with anywhere else. (Just because a Moslem country works with us - like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the various "****stans" doesn't mean it's actually friendly to the US.)
-
Why would one of those "friendly countries" let him talk? Granted most you listed have pretty moderate governments but the last thing they need is to get their own in house crazies stirred up. Or have their country be targeted from afar for conspiring with the infidels.
-
That actually narrows it down quite a bit. I'll say Turkey . . . but after that? Bahrain? Qatar? Kuwait? Maybe Indonesia . . .
Having a spot of difficulty coming up with anywhere else. (Just because a Moslem country works with us - like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the various "****stans" doesn't mean it's actually friendly to the US.)
And do you think Saudi Arabia would not let the guy on whom they depend for their supply of shiny Western weaponry visit their country?
-
Just a SLIGHT difference between Chamberlain and Churchill and the situation as it exists today...
Britain was fighting a recognized state.
The war on terror largely lacks that nuance.
-
Just a SLIGHT difference between Chamberlain and Churchill and the situation as it exists today...
Britain was fighting a recognized state.
The war on terror largely lacks that nuance.
It can, though. Unfortunately, not enough people realize what we are doing (in Iraq and Afganistan) and what we sould continue to do.
We are and should be fighting EVERY country that supports terrorists. Period.
If terrorists no longer have countries aiding them and giving them refuge, then they will have nowhere to hide.
Too many people spout off about Iraq: "Bush lied! They didn't have weapons of mass destruction!" or "Bush lied! They didn't have anything to do with 9/11!!!!"
That wasn't the point. The point is to make any state that supports terror start fearing that they might be next.
Unfortunately, they now see that so long as their not #1 on the chopping block during an actual attack on the US, they have nothing to worry about.
We are weak: we have a lack of will to use our strength.
The terrorists see this and so do the coutries that support them.
-
Yes, it CAN have any nuance you want.
That's a large part of the problem.
So, when will the United States be invading the.... United States?
We have a long history of providing support to organizations that are little more than terrorist cells.
"That wasn't the point. The point is to make any state that supports terror start fearing that they might be next."
Funny, I don't remember Colin Powell or Condoleza Rice using that logic to build international support for the US going into Iraq. "Logic" such as that wouldn't have flown then, and it should never fly. And, if ALL Iraq was was some sort of "you could be next" message to the world, instead of a "See Daddy, I'm going to do what you couldn't do and take out Iraq" FU to the elder Mr. Bush (to be fair, I don't remember either Powell or Rice using that "logic" either) we could have easily sent the same message and saved on aircraft transport by invading Mexico.
-
Yes, it CAN have any nuance you want.
That's a large part of the problem.
So, when will the United States be invading the.... United States?
We have a long history of providing support to organizations that are little more than terrorist cells.
"That wasn't the point. The point is to make any state that supports terror start fearing that they might be next."
Funny, I don't remember Colin Powell or Condoleza Rice using that logic to build international support for the US going into Iraq. "Logic" such as that wouldn't have flown then, and it should never fly. And, if ALL Iraq was was some sort of "you could be next" message to the world, instead of a "See Daddy, I'm going to do what you couldn't do and take out Iraq" FU to the elder Mr. Bush (to be fair, I don't remember either Powell or Rice using that "logic" either) we could have easily sent the same message and saved on aircraft transport by invading Mexico.
Perhaps you are right. However, it really seems as though Libya got that message.
-
Once again, those pesky nuances.
Only in this case, it's a very critical one.
Libya was using terror as a matter of governmental policy, not just looking the other way while its nation generated rogue terrorists who set up training camps.
-
Well, if this is a "show everyone what we can do to countries that support/harbor terrorists" operation, we could have just blasted them to heck and went home ;/
-
Asserting "they only respect strength" is obviously not sufficient to explain 'the psyche of extremists". They have killed more Americans since September 11 2001 than on that murderous day.
Terrorism is not about statistics, but about terror. Killing a few thousand American soldiers in Iraq is one thing. Hijacking planes and knocking out the WTO and the Pentagon on live TV is something else entirely.
-
Terrorism is not about statistics, but about terror. Killing a few thousand American soldiers in Iraq is one thing. Hijacking planes and knocking out the WTO and the Pentagon on live TV is something else entirely.
Or blowing up trains in London.
-
"They have killed more Americans since September 11 2001 than on that murderous day."
Hum...
Had we used that logic in responding to the Japanese aggression in the Pacific in 1941, the Greater East Asian Co-Propserity Sphere would be going strong.
And would include the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, etc.
-
"They have killed more Americans since September 11 2001 than on that murderous day."
Hum...
Had we used that logic in responding to the Japanese aggression in the Pacific in 1941, the Greater East Asian Co-Propserity Sphere would be going strong.
And would include the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, etc.
Do you imagine invading, say, Argentina as response to Pearl Harbor would have helped?
-
Our only hope is that he uses the speech to announce "common sense" measures to combat Islamic radicals. We all know that means extreme measures. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.
-
Do you imagine invading, say, Argentina as response to Pearl Harbor would have helped?
False analogy.
We invaded a country who we were at war with already that was flaunting its breaking of the cease fire agreement from the gulf war.
A country that has strategic significance in the war on terrorists being next to Syria and Iran and all...
A country that we hoped would embrace democracy and the opportunity for a more free society making it a formidable ally with us against jihad ideology.
A country that has the second largest oil reserves known making it a potentially powerful ally in the future.
I thought you were in Israel? What do they teach you there?
-
Let me ask you this:
What do you think the best possible outcome of the Iraq war can be? America will no doubt win, or has already won and is now only mopping up, but what do you think will be the best possible outcome?
-
Let me ask you this:
What do you think the best possible outcome of the Iraq war can be? America will no doubt win, or has already won and is now only mopping up, but what do you think will be the best possible outcome?
Like everyone else I've lowered my expectations and hopes for Iraq.
If they can remain a democracy and keep from self immolation I'll be happy.
Any greater strides than that they make in my lifetime will just be a bonus.
-
So, by democracy you mean something like Indonesia or Israel, where the government staying on its hind feet for more than two minutes is considered a great miracle? Not something like Europe, yes?
-
"Do you imagine invading, say, Argentina as response to Pearl Harbor would have helped?"
Actually, given the amount of German and Japanese espionage and financing that was coordinated through Argentina during the war, it probably wouldn't have been such a bad idea.
Nice non sequitor, as you know exactly what my point is -- that, in response to such situations, shoving your head so far up your ass that you're looking out your own mouth isn't a viable reaction.
At the time that Iraq was invaded, the administration had presented some pretty compelling evidence that Hussein WAS involved in various terror plots globally.
Why do you think so many nations actually signed off on the Iraq invasion in the first place?
It's the perfect vision of hind sight that allows people like... well... you to get all smug and superior and lordly and say "See! You were wrong! Which is why one should never do anything at all!"
Yeah.
Right.
-
What do you think the best possible outcome of the Iraq war can be? America will no doubt win, or has already won and is now only mopping up, but what do you think will be the best possible outcome?
For well short of a trillion dollars we should have neutralized the general Islamist threat throughout the Ummah. By force of intimidation. Efficiently, surgically, without ruth. Not "liberation," nation-building, or social work.
-
For well short of a trillion dollars we should have neutralized the general Islamist threat throughout the Ummah. By force of intimidation. Efficiently, surgically, without ruth. Not "liberation," nation-building, or social work.
Ah, but here's the issue:
Do you think that what America got or will get in Iraq (assuming achievement of all US policy goals) is worth the price paid, in dollars and in lives?
THAT is a legitimate question.
-
Do you think that what America got or will get in Iraq (assuming achievement of all US policy goals) is worth the price paid, in dollars and in lives?
If we get a military presence in the Middle East, a friendly government that's remotely democratic, and are able to use our presence to pressure other Middle Eastern nations to stop harboring terrorists, then, yes, the price will have been worth it.
The Middle East is the only part of the world that's a direct threat to us right now. Russia is flexing its muscles, and China is getting stronger every day, but I don't think they would go to war with us.
-
I think our political leadership has been operating on faulty assumptions. I would love to see us succeed, given the cost in blood and treasure, but I have trouble believing that democracy is going to take root in Islamic states or that we are going to see significant religious reforms that would preclude or mitigate further attacks. We might be able to co-exist with Islam, but only from a position of unchallengeable strength, constant vigilance, and no self-deception. From my perspective it appears that we have been effectively neutered by economic and financial compromises and that the Europeans, in their zeal for mutliculturalism, are forging a game-changing conflation of socialism and Islam.
A trillion dollars would be "worth it" if it "works." In the bigger picture I don't see that it is. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two local theaters in war that is global in geographic scope and indeterminate in duration.
-
Ah, but here's the issue:
Do you think that what America got or will get in Iraq (assuming achievement of all US policy goals) is worth the price paid, in dollars and in lives?
THAT is a legitimate question.
Let me flip the question back at you.....
Do you think that what America has gotten or will get in Europe is worth the price paid (WWI, WWII and the Cold War), in dollars and lives ??
-
Let me flip the question back at you.....
Do you think that what America has gotten or will get in Europe is worth the price paid (WWI, WWII and the Cold War), in dollars and lives ??
At the moment, I think we are going to get a profound example of a road to not take, as we watch it lead to their ruin.
-
Let me flip the question back at you.....
Do you think that what America has gotten or will get in Europe is worth the price paid (WWI, WWII and the Cold War), in dollars and lives ??
They'll have had a 100 year renewal due to our boys' blood, when they finally die off enough by 2050 to no longer be "european" and are taken over by their immigrant population.
100 years is a good, long stretch of stability & no major wars. Expecting solutions to last in perpetuity is not realistic.
Well, if this is a "show everyone what we can do to countries that support/harbor terrorists" operation, we could have just blasted them to heck and went home ;/
This is what we ought to have done, with the added proviso that we ensured Saddam was killed in the carnage.
And that is what I would have desired: carnage. All this "surgical strike so we don't tip over their teacups or scorch their mosques" baloney would have been out the door.
It would have been an object lesson to future potential antagonists: yank our tail and we will turn around and rip out your throat.
Expecting democracy and decent behavior from savages that have no tradition of civilized behavior is like expecting Muscovy ducks to lay eggs that hatch swans.
-
Let me flip the question back at you.....
Do you think that what America has gotten or will get in Europe is worth the price paid (WWI, WWII and the Cold War), in dollars and lives ??
WWII - Yes. WWI - no. Especially as WWII was in part a result of flawed US policy in WWI.
I'm sorry, but not all wars are equal. There are some wars in US history which were not just, and which cost the US public a heavy cost not just in money, not just in lives, but in freedoms lost. Many people view the modern expansion in state power to be a child of FDR's era. They need to look at what Wilson did during WWI.
-
This is what we ought to have done, with the added proviso that we ensured Saddam was killed in the carnage.
I'm glad Saddam was hung, but I would have been just as happy had the soldiers that found him and pulled him out of his hole had instead shoved him back down and dropped a grenade down the hole...