Im not sure, but it seems to me that you argue ..1) that we have not heretofore been sufficiently provoked to justify our striking back at them, plus 2) we're not absolutely positive who did this, coupled with 3) the fact that doing so would be futile unless we opt to kill them all, and of course 4) since the CIA set the supposed perpetrator up, why should we take it out on them? .Is that a fair summary?
In response, in summary I would say (perhaps I speak for others too?).. 1) we have been sufficiently provoked and our response should be "measured" to respond in kind. Many of us dont want to wait for the next act, which of course you argue isnt coming, or isnt going to be large, or may not come at all if we call off the dogs .. (I think youve said all 3?)
To 2), I say we shouldnt strike until we are positive, and it seems like theyre getting there. and 3) You merely have to destroy the network and frighten the host states into controlling their populations. It can be done, its been done before, it just requires some "re-education" as well as Force ( of course)
and 4)The CIA may muck things up, but these are the cards we've been dealt, and I dont feel like waiting to hear about how my kids were blown up by terrorists at school; which of course you say will never happen, or if it does, it doesent matter in the long run, or if it does, nothing could have been done about it , its out of our hands
In all fairness, I guess if this was '41 and the Japanese had just bombed Pearl Harbor, youd be in favor of a WAR type, response.. Right ? (or would you be talking about how FDR set this up, and it all about trade routes and oil, and hegemony and the WAR Dept,and thats as far as they can reach, and who gives 2 spits about Pearl Harbor? Its not even a US State!!)
Im not sure, but it seems to me that you argue ..1) that we have not heretofore been sufficiently provoked to justify our striking back at them,
The short answer is, yes, if I thought it would be an effective act, that achieved anything I wanted at reasonable cost, I'd be in favor of it--But it is not, whether you think terrorists are basic to Islam, or, as I do, peripheral, and promoted by sinister western interests. This will not be an act that suppresses terrorism--it will be an act that ushers in more of it. At base, I think I agree with XBob, physically taking over all of Islam, and running their schools and press for them for two generations will be the least expensive effective act we could manage, short of the genocide of Islam. You think we can stomach or afford, or succeed, at that kind of comprehensive thought policing? This presently trumpeted notion, which seems to be gaining currency, that a "measured" response will make Islam so fearfully respectful, that "they" will put an end to this virulent anti-western bombast & terrorism, is the most mind-scroggling mis-estimation of the workings of the human heart as any wistful pink-bunnies and snowcones thinking I have ever seen in my life, outside of a feminist enclave at a PTA meeting I once attended.
There is serious brain damage loose in the land on this subject. On the one hand, we have zealous fundamentalists to battle, and our best thinking, in support of this latest half-baked military adventure, is that it will somehow provoke the "moderate" Islam states into suppressing the stream of consciousness that promotes it. I've got news: zealots are not moderatable by "measured" force of arms--moderates are hardly any more so. People who promote this point of view ought to be institutionalized--instead, they run our presses and government.
plus 2) we're not absolutely positive who did this, coupled with 3)
Yea. Well, obviously, a bunch of 30-40 year old, well-off minor playboys, with the brains, westernization, and patience to get pilot licenses, and the propensity to party hearty, who all fly planes into buildings in conjunction, are a natural sole result of islamic fundamentalist zeal. Or, they were talked into feeling this way by Ben Laden. If western fundamentalist christians were acting like responsible islamic adults for 10 years or so, before dropping hijacked jetliners on Mecca, would you be equally accepting? Hey, this thing stinks, and when something stinks, you ought to take some time to think about it.
In response, in summary I would say (perhaps I speak for others too?).. 1) we have been sufficiently provoked and our response should be "measured" to respond in kind. Many of us dont want to wait for the next act, which of course you argue isnt coming, or isnt going to be large, or may not come at all if we call off the dogs .. (I think youve said all 3?)
No. I'd guess further damage is presently scheduled in the pipeline, and will be perpetrated. And we should try hard to prevent it or, probably more effective, minimize it's results here, but until we are ready to revamp or destroy Islam, military adventures short of that can only serve to accelerate the problem down the road. We are getting ready to perform a highly irrational act for heavily charged emotional reasons that are easy to understand, but shouldn't be mistaken for rational justification.
You merely have to destroy the network and frighten the host states into controlling their populations. It can be done, its been done before, it just requires some "re-education" as well as Force ( of course)
Good grief--is that how we would respond if colors were reversed? Can the Suadis control what the Islam press and churches do in Bombay or Christchurch? Could Islam pursuade us, with a "measured" military response, say, in Alabama, to throttle the anti-Islamic rhetoric coming from churches in Canada? Either they are fundamentalist zealots, who arise from fundamentalist zealotry we are fighting or they are not. Which is it?
nothing could have been done about it , its out of our hands
Nothing we'd be willing to do that would be effective using our military can be done about it, at present. I am sorry for that. Do you think pretending it isn't so is much saner than what the Islamic zealots are doing?
In all fairness, I guess if this was '41 and the Japanese had just bombed Pearl Harbor, youd be in favor of a WAR type, response.. Right ? (or would you be talking about how FDR set this up, and it all about trade routes and oil, and hegemony and the WAR Dept,and thats as far as they can reach, and who gives 2 spits about Pearl Harbor? Its not even a US State!!)
To meaningfully threaten a country's existence as an aggressor state, you need a large standing army. Japan had one. Islamic zealots is shadows on the wall, not an aggressor country with a large standing army, whose identity we have no doubts about. Washington's advice is still the best: if their troops aren't marching on your capital, stay home and clean your gun.
I submit to you that it is very peculiar that even now we are not taking far cheaper, non-military steps to make our homeland and our lives more defensible. Bubonic shots, Anthrax drills, beefing up safety shelter medical&support supplies and security drills a' la' WWII, would be far better bang for the buck than foreign military adventures. Ask yourself why we aren't doing this. Is it because somebody wants us left intentionally vulnerable while they go overseas to stir up hornet's nests?
...
...in just the same way we were just now left vulnerable in the skies above Washington, despite substantial warnings arising from ours', and others' intelligence community, some of these warnings locked onto specific of these individuals? And the one from France specific as to the form of attack? Public domain information allowed the Pittburg passengers to figure out what was going on. And much better public information was available to the CIA and it's computers. This scenario is not believable.
I have several predictions to make in support of my supposedly paranoid contention that the desire to invade Afganistan is the cart, and the terrorist acts were the horse.
1) Any fast attempt toward handing over Ben Laden will immediately provoke invasion.
2) If a natural blunder doesn't kill a bunch of photogenic Afgani civilians in the immediate invasion, one will happen shortly after occupancy.
3) We will be just sufficiently vulnerable to whatever the response is (my guess is Anthrax, it has a lot of advantages you wouldn't at first think about, for my postulated shadow government.) to justify general marshall law, and the invocation of the EEOC's to unleash FEMA on us, but not much more so. Anthrax's scope is very easy to control, as it isn't extra-ordinarily infectuous.