THIS IS NOT A TROLL

[kisc]

Bush told the truth: The weapons existed

What do you all think of this? It is the opinion section of whatever this website is, where it belongs, but it seems to make a good point.

Not that I know what I'm talking about, which is why I hope someone smarter than me will have something to say.

....

Also, can you say deja vu[edit

Comments

[hemlock_martini]

Khaddafi is looking out for Khaddafi, as always. There are more like him all around the world who won't be so ready to roll over.

See, here's my thing--everybody's assuming three points, that (A) you can have a war against an abstract noun like "terrorism," (B) that you can WIN a war against an idea, again like "terrorism" and that (C) once we kill all the terrorists there won't be any more terrorists. First off, you can't win a war against an idea, especially one so vaguely-defined and open-ended as "terrorism." Even the War On Drugs was more clearly defined, and as history proves, drugs are pretty much winning that one. The idea of taking up arms against what the impoverished see as a tyrannical oppressor who slanders their religion just by existing is an ancient one and won't be killed off by a land war in Asia. And terrorism is generational, it is self-perpetuating--how many young Iraquis will grow up and happily accept the idea of martyring themselves in attempting to kill the Great Satan who invaded their country, killed their parents, tortured their neighbors and insulted their religion? Even if Iraq does become a flowers-and-happiness democracy, which it most probably won't; I'm willing to bet that a sizable chunk of the up-and-coming Iraqui generation will be more than happy to die for the next charismatic imam who stirs up their dormant hatred. The "flypaper" theory is bullshit spread by people who should know better. Even if you kill all the flies, their maggots are surely propagating elsewhere.

In no way am I against shooting terrorists in the face when the chance presents itself; even the most pacifistic leftists I know would happily pull the trigger if the opportunity came up. I *AM* against fighting "terrorism" in the same way that one would destroy an anthill by dropping a Buick on it. There needs to be a smarter way to both reduce the root causes of terrorism and fight it physically in ways that don't involve 2000+ deaths in the WRONG COUNTRY.

[kisc]

How wrong country? You would prefer they do it here? Or am I missing something else? :)

Have you read the art of war? Sun Tzu says that you should be on the offense strategically and on the defense tactically.

I don't disagree with your fly/maggot statement, but one of the big problems I have with everyone saying that Bush is doing the wrong thing is this: What else should we be doing? Shall we handle things like the French government? Or perhaps the Spanish? Just because you cannot win a war does not mean you should not fight. Sun Tzu said something else, and I have a problem with this one: "War occurs when one side or the other miscalculates their chances of winning." That's not always true. War can also occur when one side believes that capitulation to a foe they cannot defeat is a worse choice than losing a war to that foe.

On his wall, John O'Brien (CEO of Winnemucca Farms, I do their IT) has a picture of a frog half-way down the throat of a heron. The frog's head is gone, his legs and "arms" are sticking out, and he has his hands wrapped around the throat of the bird. The caption is "never give up."

I would propose that a "never give up" poster relating to Islamofascist terrorism would be a guy covered in flies, with more maggots crawling towards his feet, while he hangs flypaper that some of them go stick to.

I don't disagree with any of your contentions, but I disagree with your conclusions. There will always be more terrorists (hopefully for values of always that approach 0 eventually), but, hopefully, plans like Iraq will weaken them sufficiently until we can come up with something as effective as Operation: Swordfish wanted you to think it would be (which it wouldn't).

[hemlock_martini]

By "wrong country" I refer to Afghanistan. As in the country we invaded in an attempt to root out the Taliban and rebuild; but sort of got disinterested in halfway and allowed to fall back into chaos and Islamofascist theocracy. See, these are the "root causes" I'm talking about--if we had taken our time and focused on Afghanistan, not only would there be a better chance of bringing bin Laden to justice, but to insure that the rule of people like him did not return. Now it's an even greater mess, and more likely to be a breeding ground for terrorist activity in the future.

I have, as a matter of fact, read The Art Of War. Nowhere did Sun Tzu suggest that you use half an army to fight a whole war (which Bush did by ignoring the Powell Doctrine), nor did he advocate fighting a war when it is not absolutely necessary (i.e. pretty much the entire Iraq fiasco, from my viewpoint). Why, instead of devoting a ground force to fight street-to-street, did we not pool international intelligence efforts to eliminate Saddam strategically?

A big fallacy of the pro-war stance is that the average anti-war person "would have us do nothing" and idly stand by as Islamofascist terrorists invade our country, rape our cows, dance with our daughters and rob us of our precious bodily fluids. Nothing could be further from the truth. I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan. I agree--to a degree--with the strengthening of Homeland Security. However, we pay the taxes of the people in charge, and therefore we expect intelligent decisions to be made. I do not feel that the invasion of Iraq was an intelligent decision, given the fact that he did not pose a threat to us.

What I would have rather seen is some sort of international coalition formed to root out terrorism and fight it on its own terms; not through street-to-street ground warfare and the bombing of "suspected targets" that end up being hospitals and mosques. No, I'm not a military expert, but seeing as how I'm living in a country that has the largest and most technologically-advanced military in the world; I expect somebody at some point to have worked this out with a calculator and make it feasible.

If Bush was "a uniter, not a divider," this would have been a walk in the park for him. He could have made the case and gotten more than a coalition of the "willing."