Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Moderate Centrist

Pre-emption

Recommended Posts

Do other countries in the international community have the right to pre-emptive strikes if they feel threatened?

Should India attack Pakistan?

Should Japan attack North Korea?

Or should this policy remain solely the right of the United States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In spite of tensions, India and pakistan have always been able to tone things down and talk about it.

However, North Korea is an illegitiamte rogue state, led by a certifiable madman who cannot be reasoned with.

I thought North korea deserved priority over Iraq, and still consider them to be the most immediate threat to stability in the world today.

Japan or South Korea would be justified in an attack designed to eliminate the North Korean leadership.

I could go on for hours with stories I got from former soviet citizens, who were about the only people in the world ever to scratch the surface of this little Stalinist hermit kingdom.

just two examples: At KOMSOMOL (Communist youth League) international meetings, people from the various east Bloc countries, Mongolia, African countries etc. would exchange buttons, patches and pins. The Noth Koreans were forbidden to exchange pins bearing the likeness of Kim Il Sung for anything.

There were also stories of how one needed to get the permission of block commitees (On which served a political officer) just to go out and buy a frying pan! They could have the money, but could not buy it without permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Neal,

I'm not defending North Korea's leaders or suggesting India should attack pakistan rather I'm asking if it is legimate for other countries to adopt the Bush Doctrine.

I don't agree with it and think it's reckless.

Part of my objection to the Iraqi war was pre-emption as a doctrine could open a pandora's box. It's a policy that can potentially lead to instability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If France, England, Czechoslovakia or Poland had the Bush doctrine in the 1930's , Hitler could have been nipped in the bud. In 1934, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland with 10 000 troops (which he then marched out again and back in to create the impression of having more troops than he really did) had the French, and British Expeditionary force immediately called for his withdrawal, and threatened to invade in the event he refused, that would have been the end of Hitler. Had Czechoslovakia, backed by England OR France taken action against Hitler after the Anschluss, after which everyone knew, Czechoslovakia would be next, Hitler would have been stopped. Poland alone could have taken out Hitler in 1936 before the military buildup was complete.

Sometimes you have to act against an enemy before he gets you. War must always be a last resort, after a policy of no concessions (rewards for bad behaviour) are exhausted.

everybody knew that Hitler wanted to expand, but there was no appetite for war, so the Brits (under first Baldwin, then Chamberlain) and French did not act until it was too late and war was thrust on them, and it was nearly too late.

The price of living as a free person is eternal vigilance. The fact is, there will always be countries that will want to harm or invade someone else, and it is up to those countries to defend themselves by being prepared, forming Alliances to dter their enemy or if neccessary, when intelligence determines that you are under threat, by acting unilaterally to defend yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'll withdraw from this for now. Good points but I disagree with the bush doctrine.

The situation with Hitler is different because in that sense he had a clear and intense drive to take over surrounding territory and was in a position to do it.

Saddam was no threat to the US or his neighbors and had no capability to do serious harm beyond his boarders as the initial stage of the war showed.

Americas' long term interests are not being served here.

Remember the boy who cried wolf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The situation with Hitler is different because in that sense he had a clear and intense drive to take over surrounding territory and was in a position to do it.

Saddam was no threat to the US or his neighbors and had no capability to do serious harm beyond his boarders as the initial stage of the war showed.

Americas' long term interests are not being served here."

Mod, were we to wait until he was a better armed foe? It would be a much fairer fight I suppose to wait for him to reinvade Iran and Kuwait or poise to move into Saudi with Nuclear weapons/ Anthrax/ Mustard or nerve agent or get that Supergun project resurected. Then we would have a better armed bully to take on so that more who were opposed would be happy. Happy that more of our soldiers would die and the Liberal battle cry would not be "where are the WMDs? But; "Why didn't the Bush administration do something about it earlier?"

Think for a moment what would have happened if the administration had come to the UN with proof (that they could not show at the time) that a terrorist element with worldwide cells was planning a major strike on US soil. After telling the Taliban unsucessfullly to stop harboring this element It asks the UN permission to go into Afganistan and nutralize Al Queda. The UN says no but the US goes in anyhow and nothing is found but some run down training camps. No plans, no 747s ready to fly into buildings. Nothing.

The above scenario of course never happened but if it had the US would be in the same position as it is now with Iraq. However as we all know the US did not do this and instead is dammed for not stopping 19 men from commiting the horrendous murder of 3000 people at the WTC.

I would take it that the latter is the more prudent course for any government to take? Chamberlain took it and he was ...... right? Wait till Pearl Harbor is attacked? What is the line that divides action and firm ceasation of aggressive military buildup from inaction and sticking your head in the sand with a thumb in your mouth?

If there is a line then as a westerner I would rather my government be firmly on the side which best protects our immediate situation with an eye to the future rather than duct tape murderous regiemes in the hopes they will not be angered by us in the hope of securing us in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod, might I suggest that the fact that the American & British Military went thru the Iraqi Forces like castor oil does not constitute proof that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors. The military forces of America, Israel & England are one or two generations ahead of the remainder of the World. There simply is no military in the World that can stand up to any one of them never mind two combined.

We are living through a period where traditional patterns of international relations are evolving into something else - we know the journey has begun but no one is sure where it will end. We are engaged in a religious war which transcends national borders and traditional alliances. The concept that war is an activity for Nation States, the concepts of diplomacy to control relations between these Nations and indeed, even the Laws of War we find are passe and must evolve into something which works to keep the peace.

Perhaps pre-emption must be the answer - if you make it plain that you mean to kill me and mine, must I wait for the first deaths to be certain that you mean what you say? Perhaps we have reached the point where talk is not cheap, it may be fatal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question is what is the criteria for pre-emption and how early do you pre-empt?

why doesnt china just go into tiawan now since the US keeps building stronger ties with it? i'm sure its army is getting stronger all the time.

why doesnt russia go into chechnya since they are just full of terrorists (from what the russians tell us)?

the US is a slave to radical political philosophies. just look at the neo-conservatives who are behind bush. they were putting out reports on 'regime change' way back in 2000. iraq wasnt a reaction, it was an implimentation after an opportunity.

US intelligence based policies is so imperfect it couldnt stop 9/11, it cant find the huge stockpilesof WMD that it KNOWS were there, it didnt forsee what abandoning afganistan for 20 years of civil war would create, it didnt raise objections to supporting saddam hussain.

not to mention the huge foreign energy dependance of the US, which assures it will prop up corrupt regimes while using desperate means to maintain cheap oil supply.

with this massive conflict of interest how can anybody trust the US.

hell, even the saudi terror links were censored in the 9/11 report. you would think with 3000 dead americans a little discomfort would be tolerated for "truth" and "justice".

america is becoming just another corperate regime in suits. i see very little transparency under its claims of morality. most americans dont even know what their country did in iran, afganistan, and iraq in the past.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the question is what is the criteria for pre-emption and how early do you pre-empt?

why doesnt china just go into tiawan now since the US keeps building stronger ties with it? i'm sure its army is getting stronger all the time.

why doesnt russia go into chechnya since they are just full of terrorists (from what the russians tell us)?

the US is a slave to radical political philosophies. just look at the neo-conservatives who are behind bush. they were putting out reports on 'regime change' way back in 2000. iraq wasnt a reaction, it was an implimentation after an opportunity.

US intelligence based policies is so imperfect it couldnt stop 9/11, it cant find the huge stockpilesof WMD that it KNOWS were there, it didnt forsee what abandoning afganistan for 20 years of civil war would create, it didnt raise objections to supporting saddam hussain.

not to mention the huge foreign energy dependance of the US, which assures it will prop up corrupt regimes while using desperate means to maintain cheap oil supply.

with this massive conflict of interest how can anybody trust the US.

hell, even the saudi terror links were censored in the 9/11 report. you would think with 3000 dead americans a little discomfort would be tolerated for "truth" and "justice".

america is becoming just another corperate regime in suits. i see very little transparency under its claims of morality. most americans dont even know what their country did in iran, afganistan, and iraq in the past.

SirRiff

Pre emption does not have a critical mass formula. Rightfully so it has a lot of human values attached to it. Loyalty, economics, fear, pride, survival, compassion, anger, religion, consience, philosophy, history and so on. To be able to give it a catch all equation is unrealistic. Each situation demands it's own method of reconing.

China does not go into Taiwan for reasons of fear and economics. To do so it knows it will smart from Taiwan for sure and will be unlikely that the US will allow it to get away with the prize. If by some cahance they may then they will suffer economicly from ostrasization from not only the US but a good part of the world. Same with the Russians. America didn't have this concern in recent history as they still power the economic world so what can China or Russia do to them?

How would you have stopped 9 11? You must be the only person on the planet who was not totally shocked that something like this happened. Nobody was prepared for it and if the US had started arresting and interrogating Middle Eastern men prior to on a tip you would be right on the human rights bandwagon condemming this unreasonable action. As for WMDs there has been a sophisticated deception regieme in Iraq for years and to not be able to come up with anything is not unrealistic. I'm estimating that less than 15% of the area of Iraq and people that have to be interviewed has been covered. Plans for nuclear reactors found buried in a scientists garden should have alerted you to that. That's a long way from saying that WMD do not nor ever did exist. What was there one day was gone an hour later. The Iraqi's knew of sattilites and survielence. They also knew the WMD programes were targets. Did you think they leave everything lying around waiting to be discovered and targeted?

Saddam was a threat for the longest time. He was occupied with an enemy of America's for almost a decade and rather than take on two adversaries it made more sense to let them take on each other. Your solution ? Take a time machine out of the closet and go back a hundred years and bring medival Islam into the twentieth century against their will and avoid all the problems of their encounters with the British, German and Turks? It had to happen some way at at some time. It happened this way and that's the cards that were dealt. To say that we should have done it differently is hindsight and has little bearing on what should be done next time as the cards have fallen.

Foriegn dependence on oil is my own conspiracy theory. Reason; when the oil is gone in the middle east America still has theirs. Survival. Right or wrong they will have it long after others do not. Name any country that can stop reacting to immediate threats and make long calls with precision. If that were the case then all sorts of difficulties would have been averted. Hitler, concentration camps, Palistine and partition, Korea, Afganistan in the 70s. To expect anybody to tell the future while trying to stamp out brush fires the globe over is unrealistic. I know that you are intelligent and believe the world should be better. It's a difference of choices and motivation that you do not like. If there was no such thing as corporate America then it would be replaced with corporate France or Germany or China or ... If we were not buyng oil off the people of the middle east they would be starving, withut medicine. The whole area would be like Afganistan as other than carpets not much is made there for worldwide consumption. In my closet I have shirts made in Taiwan, tools from China, France etc, but not one widget or snibbet from any Arab country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"How would you have stopped 9 11? You must be the only person on the planet who was not totally shocked that something like this happened. Nobody was prepared for it and if the US had started arresting and interrogating Middle Eastern men prior to on a tip you would be right on the human rights bandwagon condemming this unreasonable action."
Krustykid

Well attacking Saddam Hussain as we all know was on the books for years and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FIGHTING TERRORISM as is widely acknowledged by most thinking people.

The 9/11 attacks were the shock that shouldn't have shocked.

You're correct that the United States wasn't prepared for it but they were warned about it in several security reports which suggested airplanes may be used as potential weapons.

See:

"White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes..."

Full story at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...memo020516.html

Also:

http://www.usa-xile.org/news/0305/19/911questions.html

The 9/11 attacks were first and foremost a failure of American security.

Fighting terrorism is a police matter requiring international cooperation and coordination of information.

Sending the boys off to war might make good news but it does nothing but increase animosity toward America.

Fighting a conventional war and planning for pre-emptive strikes does nothing to prevent or fight terrorism.

Resources should be spent not invading Iraq but rather putting pressure on terrorist hot beds in Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and Saudi Arabia to name a few. These states do actively support terrorism. It is here the attention should be focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod, we have a basic disconnect here. Terrorism is an act of war not merely criminal activity. Out of concerns for our individual freedom (and based upon bitter past experience) we hobble our police and prosecution and the catch-phrase is "rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent person be convicted." We (us citizens) have made the choice that this is the way we wish to live among ourselves. And it works - among ourselves!

Terrrorists, to put it mildly, do not share our values or our culture. Our police are not trained and do not have the tools to counter such activity on a world-wide basis. This is why we have a military - to meet threats beyond the capacity of our normal law enforcement procedures. And the military do not and can not operate under "police procedures" - they are brought in when the situation is beyond the capacity of the criminal justice system. War is not simply a criminal matter, it is war. It's apples and oranges.

On the intelligence "failure" - no one who has not been involved in intelligence matters has any concept of the "signal to noise ratio". The spy who sits next to the Leader with a tape recorder is so rare as to be almost fictional. What you get on a daily take is several thousand clues. One will be that the terrorist plan to hijack some planes. Another will be that the terrorists are taking lessons on driving tractor trailer trucks. A third will be that so-and-so, known to have met with a terrorist sometime in the past, has just ordered all kinds of literature on crop-dusting aircraft.

All three of these are real examples of the intelligence take prior to 9 - 11. Shortly after 9 -11, all crop dusting ceased for about a month in the States (& perhaps Canada) as it was thought this could be an inovative method for a CBR attack and it had to be checked out. A roommate of someone connected to the attack was found to have taken tractor trailer driving lessons and I'm quite certain records of every school were examined to check that out - but this all happened after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20 - when the raw data is re-examined after the fact, people are quick to say - "see, there - you had a tip they were going to hijack planes, you should have known....." "There has been an intelligence failure!" The problem is not lack of a clue, it's too damn many clues, incomplete ones, from sources of uncertain reliability and the problem is to determine what is fact and what is fiction. HUMINT, intelligence from people can be garbage or gold and it is not easy, in advance, to determine which it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why does terrorism have more to do with iraq then saudi arabia?

why wasnt giving $3 Billion to osam bin ladens guys in the 80s, and supporting saddam as he raped and murdered and gassed iranians not terrorism by the US?

why do large segments of americans believe WMD have been found and iraq was directly invoved in 9/11?

why were the portions of the 9/11 report that were censored about the worlds largest oil producer?

why does bush continue to link iraq and al queda when no intelligence agency in the world will step up and confirm it?

since the US knew so much about the quality and location of the WMD, why have the special investigation teams in iraq run out of sites and get reassigned?

america cannot be trusted to pre-empt because they have supported every evil dicator that furthers thier power.

their population is largely uninformed and easily manipulate by thier leaders.

they are slaves to middle easterns oil and need to bribe corrupt regimes in order to remain rich.

America is slowly become a rouge nation.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod, of course it is all going to make sense now. The FBI and the rest of the inteligence agencies have gone over all files with a fine tooth comb with all the key words of a search engine; Arab, unshaven, paid cash, box cutter purchases, flight schools, 767, WTC, etc etc. That is an obvious thing to do and will after the fact tell you what you already know.

Prior to 911 what were the key words that they might have used? Known terrorists, embassies, military, NBCW, Sudan, Libya, Syria , AK47 and try this one; terrorist groups and members. Try it, punch it into a search engine along with all the rest of the words that you can possibly think of that connect terrorists with anything. Out of the millions of bits of information you get I'll bet you lunch you cannot predict any detail out of the next twenty terrorist acts commited other than they are by an Arab male (s) and against the west in some way.

Go for it, help the free world out .

Quote: The 9/11 attacks were first and foremost a failure of American security.

Mod, you gotta be hard core Liberal to say something like that. Next you'll be calling for a class action suit against the airlines on behalf of the terrorists for not topping the tanks up with something more exposive and hotter burning to allow them to kill more people. Poor fellows, don't ever lay blame with the criminal. After all, there is no rape victims, only girls that allow guys to shove their penises into them after they plead to be beaten and kidnapped. Then the poor fellows are left with scraped knuckles and bruised knees. No such thing as a thief, only foolish, bourgeois and more fortunate people who do not guard their possesions with locks, guns, dobermans and guards. (LOL, all the things a Liberal detests.) The poor victim just happened to enter the wrong house and whoops! The TVs, computors and all just jumped into their arms! Better to blame somebody else instead of the perpetrator, he is, after all, something the Liberal must try to find a reason for. An excuse, something to coddle.

Let us know when and where and by who and against whom the next terrorist act will happen. The innocent women and children (Ooops, I mean the guilty western women and children of capitalistic war mongers) should get some warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, SirRiff, to use your own words, Canadians must then be terrorists. You (Canada) have done business for generations with America. In fact, your entire economy depends upon sales to the U.S. - a terrorist nation in your terms. Pot meet kettle.

From your statements, because America does not immediately lash out at every Nation connected to terrorism activities, we are somehow damned. You really need to hit the books and learn something about strategy - the world is a great deal more complex than you are willing to consider.

A Jihad has been declared against America by followers of the religion of Islaam. The choice offered to us is to convert to Islaam, submit as slaves, or die.

Our response is: "None of the above!" We have choices in our response to this attack and Jihad against us:

1) We can declare a Crusade, to oppose their Jihad, and wipe the believers of Islaam from the face of the World.

2) We can perform triage upon Islaam, excise their fanatics and 'motivate' them to discover their Luther to reform/revise their religion so that they will live in peace with those who hold other beliefs.

I am sure that if President Bush knew you were available to advise him, he would dispense with all those nasty Americans who believe that America has a right to survive as the Land of the Free. But please, instead of just looking backwards and pontificating, do share with all of us your solutions to this minor problem. Share your wisdom and solutions with us, please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Krustykidd,

I am in no way laying blame for the terrorist attacks on the American people. I do not believe the Amerians deserved such an attack nor do I view terrorists as anything other than what they are… criminals.

My points were:

-that attacking Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with fighting terrorism,

-that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and finally

-that American Intelligence failed to prevent the attacks of which lack of communications was a factor.

I am well aware that it’s easy to find fault after the fact and that hindsight is 20/20.

However mistakes were made and if America is really concerned about international terrorism it should examine it’s own security procedures first before laying blame elsewhere.

With regards to the war in Iraq – as far as I’m concerned it’s a drain on American resources that could be better used elsewhere.

As far as being a “liberal” goes – I’m neither hard left nor hard right. I have no interest in dogma or labels. I believe in holding the middle ground or staying slightly right of centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how the word "Liberal" is used as a perjorative description by some. Obviously a liberal is a tree-hugging, earth-loving, socialist fruitcake whose words can therefore be ignored.

Doesn't work that way, folks. No pigeon-holing, please. Discuss the points of debate, not attributed political orientations. And thanks! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Mod that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. He was however, in the wrong place at the wrong time, wagging the wrong finger.

Iraq was instrumental in the war on terror. A rogue regime with a ruler the Americans wanted out, a reason to justify it, and situated geographicly near other possible areas they may wish to move afterwards. Two other observations are that Iraq was pretty much on her own in the Arab world and would not be as sorely missed as say Egypt or Syria. As well, taking him out sent a message of American might and resolve to other countries such as Syria and Iran.

As for American intelligence failing; sure, they could have done better but who would have thought? These guys could have hijacked those planes with garrots made of shoelaces or laptops used as maces. It was more imaginative than fiction you have to admit. I too find fault on the intelligence community but to lay blame soley on them is pointing the canons in the wrong direction.

I also agree with you on the US getting out soon. They owe Iraq nothing but that is something they want to do in order to promote stability and a PR exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK, good points. Plus you remove a funding source of terror, remove instability, and can reform Palestine, plus withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia - which apparently is such a big issue with the Mullahs.

In 2 years Iraq and Afghanistan will be settled down and next on the list should be Syria and Iran. The entire Middle East will be remade.

Oh but I thought the Arab street would rise up ? millions of babies would die ? World War 3 would begin ? A million Bin Ladens would be recruited ?

Hmmm more Liberal nonsense I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh but I thought the Arab street would rise up ?  millions of babies would die ?  World War 3 would begin ?  A million Bin Ladens would be recruited ? 

Rise up and get taken out. Might still makes more right than bending over and getting it from behind. A million Bin Ladens = a million bullets. As well we have unusual aid in the war on terror; every country that formerly did nothing and now doesn't want to be accused of aiding and abetting terrorists. That has probably been the most positive result of US military actions scince 9 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terrrorists, to put it mildly, do not share our values or our culture. Our police are not trained and do not have the tools to counter such activity on a world-wide basis. This is why we have a military - to meet threats beyond the capacity of our normal law enforcement procedures. And the military do not and can not operate under "police procedures" - they are brought in when the situation is beyond the capacity of the criminal justice system. War is not simply a criminal matter, it is war. It's apples and oranges.

On the contrary. Law enforcement techniques, combined with competent intelligence gathering, has long been the most successful weapon against terrorism. The application of conventional military force against terrorism is like trying to kill a fly with a bazooka: lot's of noise and a big mess, but you never know if you actually got the fly.

A Jihad has been declared against America by followers of the religion of Islaam. The choice offered to us is to convert to Islaam, submit as slaves, or die.

Our response is: "None of the above!" We have choices in our response to this attack and Jihad against us:

1) We can declare a Crusade, to oppose their Jihad, and wipe the believers of Islaam from the face of the World.

2) We can perform triage upon Islaam, excise their fanatics and 'motivate' them to discover their Luther to reform/revise their religion so that they will live in peace with those who hold other beliefs.

Utterly simplistic claptrap. Islam is not some enormous completely homogenous entity. Al Q'aida is a relatively small group armed with a radical interpretation of the religion that by no means represents the feelings of most of the Muslim world. However, black and white worldviews like the above certainly feed into the unease many of the followers of Islam feel. It's a simple matter to stoke that unease into resentment and on to hatred.

Might still makes more right than bending over and getting it from behind. A million Bin Ladens = a million bullets.

By this logic, the 9-11 attacks were justifiable.

In 2 years Iraq and Afghanistan will be settled down and next on the list should be Syria and Iran. The entire Middle East will be remade.

Outright statements of imperial ambition, support for the crushing of national soverignty by foreign military force, and the goal of remaking another religion (undoubetdly in your own image): and you wonder why people fear and hate America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Dog, your world view is so naif and misguided that were it to prevail, we would need to begin to study Arabic and prepare to convert to Islam. You state:

Islam is not some enormous completely homogenous entity. Al Q'aida is a relatively small group armed with a radical interpretation of the religion that by no means represents the feelings of most of the Muslim world. However, black and white worldviews like the above certainly feed into the unease many of the followers of Islam feel. It's a simple matter to stoke that unease into resentment and on to hatred.

Radical Islam is engaged in a religious war with the West. A central orientation of the Arab world is the tribe/clan so it is no surprise that there are multiple organizations such as A.Q., Hamas, Hezbollah, etal. Their culture mandates this clannish approach and, indeed, this is one of the things that will allow us to defeat them in detail. Add to this mix the politics of the Arab States, from the theocracy of Iran, the Su-uni fanatics of the ibn Saud family, the Nazi Ba-ath parties of Iraq and Syria and the dictatorships of Egypt , Libya and others and you can recognize one common theme. They all hate America. They hate America not for anything we have done but for what we are.

You speak of the "unease" in many followers of Islam and that's good - they damn well should be feeling uneasy! Since 9 - 11 we have listened to those who say they are the "moderates" in the world of Islam and who claim that the majority of the Islamic World does not share the beliefs of these fanatics and does not support them. Bluntly, our jury is still out on this question and they have true cause to be uneasy if we are forced to conclude we are at war with Islam, not just a fanatical element thereof. Islam has a choice - reform or die.

I have listened and read all the bullsh1t about the "Arab Street" with a great deal of humor. It's like the May Day Parades of old, staged events with a great deal of sound and fury but no substance. No-one speaks of the one street that can dictate the actions of its government: the American Street. We Americans have the one government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. This is why the European elite join the Arab governments and Islamic fanatics in hating us. We are the common man and we do not and will not bow or kneel to anyone. We select our leaders and choose who to follow. No "elite" rules us or dictates our actions. We are the culture of the common man and that is why our culture spreads throughout the World - and the "elite" rulers hate us for it. And all of this is why they should fear the American Street.

There was a survey last year and very few people paid attention to it, but they should have. For the first time in our history, more than 80 % of the American people are ready to use nuclear weapons. That should have made the Arab Leaders, the Islamics and the Europeans sit up and take notice but they have such a blind spot where America is concerned that they continue to think of Americans as sheep like their own subjects. This is a fatal error. Fear an enraged American Street!

Briefly, your insistence that terrorism is a law enforcement problem indicates to me that you lack real life experience with law enforcement. While terrorist acts are criminal, they are also acts of war which our law enforcement agencies are neither designed or empowered to control. I do not understand how you can reach this conclusion so would you explain how you define and differentiate between a criminal act and an act of war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary. Law enforcement techniques, combined with competent intelligence gathering, has long been the most successful weapon against terrorism. The application of conventional military force against terrorism is like trying to kill a fly with a bazooka: lot's of noise and a big mess, but you never know if you actually got the fly.

KK

The whole Arab world knows we are out to take terrorism on. The usual lip service does not work anymore and we take out those that work against us. Seen many attacks on US soil lately? None. Better law enforcement techniques? No, more like letting them know we will kick them where it hurts. Right now there is even more rhetoric from leftists like yourself than militants but keep it up, even poor murdering fundamentalists need a shoulder to cry on while they try to kill your child on CNN.

Utterly simplistic claptrap. Islam is not some enormous completely homogenous entity. Al Q'aida is a relatively small group armed with a radical interpretation of the religion that by no means represents the feelings of most of the Muslim world. However, black and white worldviews like the above certainly feed into the unease many of the followers of Islam feel. It's a simple matter to stoke that unease into resentment and on to hatred.

KK

A simple matter to stoke that unease into resentment and on to hatred is kind of like terrorism is it not? We get along and trade quite nicely with the rest of the world. Those who aid and abet terrorists are now considered terrorists. If it is a simple matter to stoke that unease into hatred then those who aid and abet terrorists have to take a side. My side is survival, yours is a drop cloth for your wife and a clitporization for your daughter? It's all or nothing for these bearded guys you infidel.

Might still makes more right than bending over and getting it from behind. A million Bin Ladens = a million bullets.

Black Dog

By this logic, the 9-11 attacks were justifiable

KK

And you of course have been hounding Yasser, Kadaffy, Hezbolah, Hamas, Shining Path, the IRA about all their actions as well I imagine. Of course not, because they are terrorists and you don't blame them for anything. We are a population whose pillars are built on compassion, aid, commerce and productivity, they in turn have built a world around self denial, pain, starvation, blame of others and excuses. The leaders seek a common enemy and would be angry if we handed them Norwiegian Line cruise tickets for God’s sake. It is a mind set geared for power amongst their peers not a political process and you think it’s a “Pro Life/Choice, Save the Whales statement. A million OBLs = a million bullets or 20 million feet of good 5/16 inch nylon rope.

Outright statements of imperial ambition, support for the crushing of national soverignty by foreign military force, and the goal of remaking another religion (undoubetdly in your own image): and you wonder why people fear and hate America.

KK

Hate to break this to you but wing night at the local bar beats greasy schwarmas cooked over camel dung with a little donkey urine thrown in for flavor any day. If they want to believe that God is God or God is a mule that’s OK too. I don’t care if they take all the money we give them for oil and buy “Saddam We Love You” T shirts but screw with my safety or way of life then I back my team. You want to root for them go ahead but don’t ever try to tell me that we short changed them. Every opportunity for a good life and freedom was given these people. OBL used our money against us, the UN and his own. He subsequently set the Arab world back decades. Did you for a moment lay any blame at his feet? No. Do you blame him for his involvement in Somalia when the US was trying to allow the movement of aid to feed starving people? No. Do you understand that his war with America is not about anything else other than him wanting to be "the main man?" Hitler used the Jews and OBL uses the USA. And your ilk fall for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the left liberal tree hugging set.

First they say that Afghanistan is unwinnable, winters too harsh, the Afghans are the world's most fearsome fighters, and that millions of babies will die in the conflict.

3 weeks later the US owns the country. Hmmmm.

Then the left liberals had a good chuckle about the 'axis of evil' speech. They broke into laughter that North Korea was included.

They pointed out to Bush that NK and Iraq are different countries and therefore could not be on an 'axis'.

Brilliant point ladies.

When Iraq was invaded suddenly the Left Liberal crowd were crowing about NK. NK was the imminent threat they whined - why not invade NK first ?? Iraq was just a minor nuisance, run by a madman who murdered his own people. But hey that is okay as long as the UN approves the genocide.

Hmm I thought that NK was a joke and not to be taken seriously and now suddenly the Left Liberals are screeching that NK IS the priority. This is of course after Billy [love my pants around my knees] Clinton made a deal with NK in 1994 to deliver $4 billion in aid plus 500.000 barrels of oil per year, if the mad man dictator that brutalises his country would just 'give us his word' he would dismantle his Nuke program.

When Bush revealed that NK had not kept their word the Liberals were shocked. "What do you mean a megalomaniac lied ?" they screamed. Quelle horreur. Even the French, known the world over to be bold faced liars, were surprised apparently at this revelation.

The only nice thing about Liberals is they are always wrong.

If you want to know what SHOULD be done read the NY Times OP Ed pages, watch the CBC or the BBC and the do the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, I was thinking the other day about your post. From one private businessman to another do you think that Liberals are more or less inclined to be entrepreneurs? A further query; do you think that Liberals are negative towards the unknown, something to be guarded against or more postive, viewing it as an opportunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Lie-berals have a few key concepts that dominate their thinking and blind them to reality:

1. Security - above all they need security and an assurance of what shall transpire. This is why they love government.

2. Power - to control, cajole, blackmail or coerce you into their mindset tantalises Lie-berals. They are the Orks of the modern world. Blind obedience to a master is a must.

3. Slander - nothing stimulates the appetite like good old fashioned name calling and emotional bed wetting for Lie-berals. Devoid of facts, common sense or historical understanding they resort to libel.

4. Revisionism - since Lie-berals are too intellectually and usually physically lazy to achieve in life [with the notable exceptions being lawyers], they revise history, to provide a rationale for a care giving state. Guilt, duty, obligations and the like are employed to develop reasons why 60 % of the available working population must support everyone else. This also includes of course program support that denigrates White Christian civilisation. After all the poor countries of the world and their people are just as worthy as ourselves. This is why they live in such a miserable mess.

Basically Liberals are anti-intellectual, anti-reality, cheap suited car salesmen, who want to live off the fat of others.

This is why they are so pernicious, obnoxious and entirely forgettable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...