PDA

View Full Version : Terror For 30 Years


Chief Faithful
05-18-2007, 11:46 AM
Ed Koch has written an interesting column, which in many ways I agree.

Do you supporters of the 'get out of Iraq now' crowd agree with his conclusion?

The war in Iraq is drawing to an end. Remember the poignancy and impact of the death of the last German soldier -- played by Lew Ayres in the film "All Quiet On the Western Front" -- shortly before the armistice that ended World War I,

Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next thirty or more years. This is a war of civilizations. The Islamic terrorists worldwide want to destroy the U.S. and every other Western nation, along with moderate Muslim nations, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, etc. Our very survival as a nation is involved. Will we have the courage and will to do all that will be necessary to prevail?

What did "victory" mean in the Cold War? Did it mean invading the USSR? Did it mean bombing Moscow? No, it meant hanging tough, preventing the Soviets from expanding their base of power, until the internal contradictions and flaws in their system brought them down. The fight against terror and Islamic radicalism has the same goal... to prevent the radicals from expanding their base, which would happen if they get control of Iraq, and to maintain a tough defense until their medieval culture adapts to the modern world.

During the Cold War the pols in Washington were mostly united in support of this goal. But now the Democrats are not. There is no safety for the weak and foolish. When you seek to end a war without substantially achieving your essential goals by simply ceasing to fight, it is often a form of surrender. And that's the way the Democrat-imposed outcome in Iraq will be understood around the world, especially by our enemies.

Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/democrats_force_surrender_in_i.html)

Jenson71
05-18-2007, 12:23 PM
Does Ed Koch's opinion mean any more than the average poster on Chiefsplanet? I don't think so. He's not really involved with terrorism or understanding it or even foreign policy or even anything in public policy that I'm aware of.

I disagree that if we leave Iraq now or soon, we're going to regret it because we'll be facing terror in America for 30 years.

bkkcoh
05-18-2007, 12:24 PM
I am currently reading this book and am finding in absolutely amazing. Who else has read this book on the planet.What the Terrorist Wants (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1400064813/sr=8-1/qid=1179512472/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/103-1510719-8571829?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1179512472&sr=8-1#customerReviews)

Jenson71
05-18-2007, 12:25 PM
I am currently reading this book and am finding in absolutely amazing. Who else has read this book on the planet.What the Terrorist Wants (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1400064813/sr=8-1/qid=1179512472/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/103-1510719-8571829?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1179512472&sr=8-1#customerReviews)

She came to my university and I listened to her give a lecture about terrorism using the points in the book. She was very good.

ClevelandBronco
05-18-2007, 02:15 PM
...My heart's with the west, but my money's on the islamists FTW (at least in the near term). All you have to do is read the posts on this forum or almost any other forum on the internet and you will see that the hate for the neocons exceeds the hate for our real enemies.

In the long run, I suspect that we will learn the lesson the hard way and that we will be forced to become more ruthless than we would have to be now to prevail. Whether it will be enough, I don't know. I'm confident it won't be pretty. As strange as it might sound, we might have to wait for the Europeans to take the lead. They are likely to feel the serious heat before we do and they have a pretty long history of making war. Even the French.

This is the legacy of Vietnam (growing comfortable with defeat) and of a couple of centuries of being isolated from reality by the protection of two oceans (growing complacent about how far being nice can get you in a dog-eat-dog world).

Adept Havelock
05-18-2007, 03:44 PM
Well, as for the "legacy of Vietnam", I'd say Iraq qualifies in one way.

We still have foolish leaders who will attempt a military solution while ignoring the geopolitical realities that preclude success.

In Vietnam, there was no way we were going to win without occupying N. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, bringing China and the USSR into the war.

In Iraq, there is no way we are going to "win" short of occupying Iran and Syria and trying to hold them down for a generation or two. Even then, it would be a victory akin to the Roman victory over Carthage. i.e."They make a desert, and name it peace."

Damn shame, as the struggle against Islamic Fundamentalism will likely be set back quite a ways simply because we took our eye off of the ball, and attacked an enemy of those same Islamic Fundies.

JMO.

Dave Lane
05-20-2007, 07:24 AM
I like this response to the book bkk is reading.

Americans seem to think that everything changed on 9/11. Subjectively, that may be true, but terrorism has been around for hundreds of years. 9/11 may be the deadliest attack yet, but that doesn't mean that the threat differs in kind from what has gone before.

Richardson places 9/11 in its historical context and shows how we should be dealing with it, which is very different from how we are dealing with it.

First off, declaring war on terrorism is folly. The British never defeated the IRA, the Russians haven't defeated the Chechnyans, and Israel hasn't defeated Hezbollah. The best we can hope for is to contain terrorism, not eliminate it. The roots are too small, scattered, and diverse to be able to pull up every one.

Another key issue is maintaining our principles. Flouting the Geneva Conventions is neither practical nor admirable and makes us more enemies, not more allies. We also need to do a better job of working with our allies, many of whom (most notably the British) have decades of experience dealing with terrorism.

The prose is somewhat dry and academic, but perhaps that is just as well. It is high time Americans took a deep breath, counted to ten, and stopped to think for a while about the right way to deal with terrorism, rather than just lashing out at any remotely plausible target without regard to the consequences.

I would hope that the members of the current and any future administration will read this book and consider it carefully.

patteeu
05-21-2007, 01:40 PM
Outstanding post, ClevelandBronco. ;)

Direckshun
05-21-2007, 01:59 PM
This is the usual retarded fear mongering. We're fighting terrorism here in the States every day. What's this supposed to mean? That homeland security's taking the war off?

I'm not scared of terrorism, and being scared of imminent terrorism is the goal of terrorism. If there's a single person in this forum that's actually scared of being killed by terrorists, congratulations, the terrorists have beaten you.

ClevelandBronco
05-21-2007, 03:07 PM
Outstanding post, ClevelandBronco. ;)

I know where to look for the best source material.

noa
05-21-2007, 03:14 PM
I know where to look for the best source material.

Get a room :p

StcChief
05-21-2007, 03:32 PM
This is the usual retarded fear mongering. We're fighting terrorism here in the States every day. What's this supposed to mean? That homeland security's taking the war off?

I'm not scared of terrorism, and being scared of imminent terrorism is the goal of terrorism. If there's a single person in this forum that's actually scared of being killed by terrorists, congratulations, the terrorists have beaten you.
Likely Some are here, planning etc.

Let's just fight the majority outside USA. where they make themselves known.

Nightwish
05-21-2007, 03:35 PM
Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next thirty or more years.If we pull out of war in Iraq, we'll be in no greater or lesser danger from terrorism than we are now, than we were before 9/11, than we were 20 years ago. Al Qaeda and other groups we define as "terrorists" make up only a very small percentage of the fighting elements in Iraq. As well, the percentage of Al Qaeda and other groups we define as "terrorists" who are taking part in the fighting in Iraq is only a very small percentage of their total numbers (i.e. the majority of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are not participating in the fighting in Iraq - to assume that we are distracting them significantly by remaining in Iraq is not only a delusion, it's a dangerous delusion). The war in Iraq is not a significant distraction to them, but it does seem to be a significant distraction for us. Not to mention that our presence in Iraq is absolutely not, repeat NOT, preventing their power base from growing; if it is doing anything, it is contributing to the growth of their power base.

Taco John
05-21-2007, 03:55 PM
Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next thirty or more years.



Is it really going to take the Democrats forcing the end to a pointless war to get across the point that we should be fighting terrorism from within our own borders? Securing the homeland should have been the top priority, not the fall back position.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2007, 03:58 PM
Outstanding post, ClevelandBronco. ;)
LOL! You mean post #5? ROFL