DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on December 30, 2009, 07:09:19 PM
-
from Glenn Greenwald, Cause & Effect in the “Terror War”
<<As always, the most confounding aspect of the reaction to the latest attempted terrorist episode is the professed confusion and self-righteous innocence that is universally expressed. Whether justified or not, we are constantly delivering death to the Muslim world. We do not see it very much, but they certainly do. Again, independent of justification, what do we think is going to happen if we continuously invade, occupy and bomb Muslim countries and arm and enable others to do so? Isn't it obvious that our five-front actions are going to cause at least some Muslims -- subjected to constant images of American troops in their world and dead Muslim civilians at our hands, even if unintended -- to want to return the violence? Just look at the bloodthirsty sentiments unleashed among Americans even from a failed Terrorist attempt. What sentiments do we think we're unleashing from a decade-long (and continuing and increasing) multi-front "war" in the Muslim war? . . .
<<Ultimately, we should ask ourselves: if we drop more bombs on more Muslim countries, will there be fewer or more Muslims who want to blow up our airplanes and are willing to end their lives to do so? That question really answers itself.>>
Read the whole article. It’s concise and very astute.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/29/terrorism/index.html (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/29/terrorism/index.html)
-
Why are we bothering with killing them?
Why don't we simply stop feeding them?
-
<<Why are we bothering with killing them?
<<Why don't we simply stop feeding them?>>
Who exactly are you feeding? What are you feeding them?
Is Greenwald right or wrong when he says that more bombing and killing of Arabs will result in more Arabs willing to die trying to blow your planes out of the sky?
Do you think you can stop every Arab who wants to blow your planes out of the sky, or do you think it's more likely that every so often, one or more of them will succeed?
-
<<Ultimately, we should ask ourselves: if we drop more bombs on more Muslim countries, will there be fewer or more Muslims who want to blow up our airplanes and are willing to end their lives to do so? That question really answers itself.>>
This is of course if you buy into the asanine premice that we're simply arbitrarily lobbing GP bombs all over the Muslim world in some effort to occasionally hit an Islamic terrorist.
Too bad that doesn't mesh with reality or the truth
-
Is Greenwald right or wrong when he says that more bombing and killing of Arabs will result in more Arabs willing to die trying to blow your planes out of the sky?
So far, he is wrong.Do you think you can stop every Arab who wants to blow your planes out of the sky, or do you think it's more likely that every so often, one or more of them will succeed?
In spite of tightening security ? You are right there is no potential for security improvements to ever be enough. This problem must be struck at its roots.
-
Is Greenwald right or wrong when he says that more bombing and killing of Arabs will result in more Arabs willing to die trying to blow your planes out of the sky?
So far, he is wrong.Do you think you can stop every Arab who wants to blow your planes out of the sky, or do you think it's more likely that every so often, one or more of them will succeed?
In spite of tightening security ? You are right there is no potential for security improvements to ever be enough. This problem must be struck at its roots.
a whole lot of progress could be made if we just dropped PC
-
Is Greenwald right or wrong when he says that more bombing and killing of Arabs will result in more Arabs willing to die trying to blow your planes out of the sky?
<<So far, [Greenwald] is wrong [in claiming that more bombing of Muslims will incite more of them to risk everything to blow an American plane out of the sky.]>>
So you believe that no matter how many Muslims are maimed or killed by American bombing, none of their relatives will ever try to revenge themselves by blowing up U.S. civilian planes or other targets?
That seems highly unrealistic to me.
<<You are right there is no potential for security improvements to ever be enough. This problem must be struck at its roots.>>
If "striking the problem at its roots" means what I think you mean, i.e., bombing the shit out of Muslims, given the mobility of the "roots" in the 21st century, how do you expect to know where the roots are, how can you strike at a continually moving target (example, Sudan to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Pakistan, Afghanistan to Yemen, Afghanistan to Somalia, not to mention the home-grown Muslim terrorists of England and Western Europe) and how many years of such bombing would you think are required before you get all the roots?
-
I didn't know we were bombing Nigeria and London.
-
Every night, BSB. Every fucking night.
-
Ah huh...
-
Asanine premice, Tee. Every fricken night
-
Is Greenwald right or wrong when he says that more bombing and killing of Arabs will result in more Arabs willing to die trying to blow your planes out of the sky?
<<So far, [Greenwald] is wrong [in claiming that more bombing of Muslims will incite more of them to risk everything to blow an American plane out of the sky.]>>
So you believe that no matter how many Muslims are maimed or killed by American bombing, none of their relatives will ever try to revenge themselves by blowing up U.S. civilian planes or other targets?
That seems highly unrealistic to me.
If I told you that every American ever killed by a Jahiadist was replaced by fifty increaseingly angry Americans would you consider that to be highly realistic?
Don't tell one side to be timid and the other side to feed rage.
Do you think of Arabs or Muslims as a diffrent species ?
Do you really think that the more one side is hurt the more they fight, and for the other side the more they are hurt the less they fight, I am not impressed by your " realism ".
Give to me the same advice you should give my opponent , "act wisely".
-
<<If I told you that every American ever killed by a Jahiadist was replaced by fifty increaseingly angry Americans would you consider that to be highly realistic?>>
Yes, of course, that was exactly Greenwald's point. Too bad you didn't bother to read the article I linked to.
<<Don't tell one side to be timid and the other side to feed rage.>>
It's your side that is feeding the rage. You've been fucking with the Arabs and the Muslims since the end of WWII, and your British and French pals long before that. I'm not telling anyone to be timid, but I AM pointing out that you're provoking the whole mess and everything you pretend to be reacting against, from U.S.S. Cole to the Sept. 11 attacks and beyond, is entirely retaliatory in nature. YOU'RE the ones who have to back off.
<<Do you think of Arabs or Muslims as a diffrent species ?>>
No, and again, it's too bad you didn't bother to read the article. That was exactly Greenwald's point, considering how angry America got after 9-11, why on earth would you think the Arabs get any LESS angry when YOU fuck with THEM?
<<Do you really think that the more one side is hurt the more they fight, and for the other side the more they are hurt the less they fight, I am not impressed by your " realism ".>>
You SHOULD be impressed by my realism, but your ignorance is preventing you. What you missed is that America is a rich and selfish nation similar to ancient Rome in that a small corps of professional soldiers (mercenaries,) many of them foreigners, are recruited to do the nation's fighting for it, while the leadership (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Jr., etc.) that started the wars does everything it can to avoid combat. What you missed is that your victims are impoverished and desperate, and have nothing to lose.
If you weren't so blinded by the myth of America as a fighting nation instead of a bunch of chickenshit fantasists who let others fight their wars and are fed a steady diet of John Wayne or Rambo movies, with Presidents who never went to war dressing up in flight suits and prancing all over the decks of aircraft carriers safe in American harbours, you'd recognize the real world soon enough - - YES, your lean and hungry victims are much more likely to try personally to avenge their murdered kith and kin than are the fat and pampered survivors of Cantor Fitzgerald brokers, yes they will go to any lengths including the murder of "innocent" civilians to do so, and no, they are not hampered by any bullshit "love your enemies" religion that leads them to forgive those who fuck with them.
Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, while the spectacle of jets and missiles raining down firepower on isolated mud huts manages to instill a lot of rage in most of the world's population, and incites huge appetites for payback, even among the wealthy Muslims who aren't even touched personally by the violence, the occasional successes of the oppressed against their oppressors does not seem to incite the American middle class or wealthy citizens into putting their lives on the line to retaliate.
<<Give to me the same advice you should give my opponent , "act wisely".>>
Exactly what I gave you, but the problem is that you're so blinded by your "Rambo" myths that you wouldn't recognize wisdom if it snuck up and bit you on the ass. So you'll go on down the same blind path, bombing, killing, torturing and murdering and creating more and more jihadis that you CAN'T eliminate, all the while professing that only by eliminating the roots can you solve the problem. You're just stuck in a rut and you're the prisoner of your own sick fantasies of violence and mass murder.
-
What you missed is that America is a rich and selfish nation similar to ancient Rome in that a small corps of professional soldiers (mercenaries,) many of them foreigners, are recruited to do the nation's fighting for it, while the leadership (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Jr., etc.) that started the wars does everything it can to avoid combat.
You do realize that both Rumfeld and Bush wore the uniform, Rumsfeld for 20 years. Both were pilots.
-
What I realize, as Colin Powell stated in his biography, was that the Air National Guard was a refuge for rich white boys whose families' money and connections bought them a respectable way of staying out of combat for the duration of the conflict.
What I realize is that ALL of them - - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Jr., Wolfowicz, Perle, Feith . . . and the list goes on . . . did everything they could to avoid combat. Air National Guard was, as Powell suggests, one such way. Three deferments and "other priorities" (Cheney) was another.
Infinite were the ways, but at the end of the day, not one of them had risked a hair on his head.
-
Rumsfeld was Navy, then later Naval Reserve.
National Guard units have served in theaters of war since the founding of this nation.
Two of the three men you listed as having avoided military service, in fact, did not.
-
<<Rumsfeld was Navy, then later Naval Reserve.>>
from Wikipedia: "He was an aviator in the United States Navy between 1954 and 1957 before transferring to the Naval Reserve."
In other words, he got into naval aviation after the Korean War was safely over, while the U.S. was at peace, and got out about three years later while the country was still at peace.
<<National Guard units have served in theaters of war since the founding of this nation.>>
"The Air National Guard was known to be a safe haven from combat for rich white boys." Colin Powell said that. But maybe the poor guy was just ignorant of the fact that National Guard "units" had served in theaters of war since the founding of the nation. Maybe the rich white guys seeking shelter from combat just didn't have access to good historians.
<<Two of the three men you listed as having avoided military service, in fact, did not. >>
I did not list anyone as having avoided military service. Clearly both Bush and Rumsfeld served. I listed them as avoiding combat. All three of them avoided combat. I listed more than three men, too. I listed Perle, Wolfowicz and Feith in addition to the first three. All six of them were successful in avoiding combat.
-
Don't know why Powell would say that. As Joint Chief of Staff during the First Gulf War he deployed 43,000 National Guard troops to the theater.
And In case you didn't know, the military sends you where they need you, if you are wearing a uniform you could be sent into combat.
I could have as easily ended up on a swift boat as i did in Iceland. I even asked for duty in the Pacific.
The powers that be had other plans for me.
-
He attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC partial scholarships (A.B., 1954)
And then he went on active duty in the Navy. I don't see where Korea played into this progression.
-
<<Don't know why Powell would say that. >>
Don't be so modest. Sure ya do.
<<As Joint Chief of Staff during the First Gulf War he deployed 43,000 National Guard troops to the theater.>>
Uh, he was speaking of events decades previous to that. He knew whereof he spoke.
<<And In case you didn't know, the military sends you where they need you, if you are wearing a uniform you could be sent into combat.>>
I guess that just slipped Powell's mind when he was writing his memoirs, eh? Or maybe he never realized that. Maybe he thought that the military had to ask a soldier's permission before sending him anywhere.
<<I could have as easily ended up on a swift boat as i did in Iceland. I even asked for duty in the Pacific.>>
From what I'm told by folks who were there, you can be sent from the rear echelon to the front line merely because you have pissed off someone higher up in the chain of command, or you can be kept Stateside in spite of repeated requests for transfer to a combat zone merely because your commander in the States thinks you are a pretty smart guy and wants you on his team on not somebody else's team. The Army hath its reasons, all of which Powell must have known when he wrote that, at the time of the Viet Nam War, the Air National Guard was a refuge for rich white guys anxious to avoid combat.
Stop spinning, BT. At the end of the day, Powell wrote what he wrote, and he knew what he was talking about, too. All the spin in the world ain't gonna change that.
<<The powers that be had other plans for me. >>
Well, they must have been benign, because you're still with us.
-
Uh, he was speaking of events decades previous to that. He knew whereof he spoke.
National Guard, Air National Guard, and other reserve units all had deployments to Viet Nam during the war years. Not sure if every state had contributed, but they WERE deployed there.
-
Soldiers aren't sent from the rear to the front unless they have the right MOS. No one wants a shitbird in their infantry unit if he doesn't know which end of his M16 to point at the enemy.
As for the National Guard and all that stuff: Some went, most did not. Most, and I repeat, most, not all, who went into those units were trying to avoid Vietnam.
-
Infinite were the ways, but at the end of the day, not one of them had risked a hair on his head.
============================
Well, there ARE training and war game accidents. It is safe to say that none of them risked harm from an enemy.
One is at a greater risk going up in a trainer than in a commercial airliner, I am sure.
-
<<National Guard, Air National Guard, and other reserve units all had deployments to Viet Nam during the war years. Not sure if every state had contributed, but they WERE deployed there.>>
Nothing's a sure thing. You can seek refuge from a flood on the roof of a house and then the house gets washed away. Whether the refuge worked for all who bought into it or not, the fact is that it was seen by Colin Powell and many others as a refuge for rich white boys seeking to avoid combat and in the case of G.W. Bush and tens of thousands of others, it fit the bill.
<<Soldiers aren't sent from the rear to the front unless they have the right MOS. No one wants a shitbird in their infantry unit if he doesn't know which end of his M16 to point at the enemy.>>
I am good friends with an AWOL U.S. corporal who was in precisely that position. He unknowingly pissed off a senior officer(the guy was wearing civvies at the time and was otherwise unknown to my friend) and late that same Friday afternoon, when it was too late for him to call around and find someone to countermand or otherwise nullify the order, an order came in for him to embark on 48 hrs. notice for Viet Nam, with all the necessary specifics included. My friend immediately packed his bags, drove straight to Detroit and over the border to Windsor. The guard at the gate of his camp knew where he was going and wished him luck. He got refugee status here and lived happily ever after as a Canadian. Maybe he wasn't going straight to the front line, but there was no reason not to think so. He was just as good a soldier as anyone else, and none of it is exactly rocket science. He sure as hell wouldn't have pointed the wrong end of the rifle at anyone.
During the war, my dad's cousin was an RCAF corporal in charge of a gun crew on a small island off the coast of Newfoundland. A 2nd Lt. dropped in on the island and told our cousin to arrest one of the crew for drunkenness. The order was absurd, our cousin refused to follow it and the officer threatened him with court-martial. The base commander dropped in on the island later to hear our cousin's version of the dispute. Almost immediately afterward, the Lt. was on his way to France.
The easiest way to deal with a fuck-up, or even with somebody who is just making unnecessary waves, is to transfer him out to somewhere else. Obviously, the Lt. wasn't necessarily going to the front, but his life expectancy sure wasn't increased when he got transferred from Newfoundland to France.
-
I am good friends with an AWOL U.S. corporal who ..............
Avoided combat, but you like him anyway?
-
<<Avoided combat, but you like him anyway?>>
That would depend on the combat he avoided. The real heroes of the Viet Nam War are the guys who wouldn't go.
-
And which combat/wars were Bush & Rumsfeld supposedly avoiding again?
-
Soldiers aren't sent from the rear to the front unless they have the right MOS. No one wants a shitbird in their infantry unit if he doesn't know which end of his M16 to point at the enemy.
As for the National Guard and all that stuff: Some went, most did not. Most, and I repeat, most, not all, who went into those units were trying to avoid Vietnam.
at least they came home whole
-
<<Avoided combat, but you like him anyway?>>
That would depend on the combat he avoided. The real heroes of the Viet Nam War are the guys who wouldn't go.
And which combat/wars were Bush & Rumsfeld supposedly avoiding again?
.....timer......
Your silence speaks volumes. My thanks
-
Soldiers aren't sent from the rear to the front unless they have the right MOS. No one wants a shitbird in their infantry unit if he doesn't know which end of his M16 to point at the enemy.
As for the National Guard and all that stuff: Some went, most did not. Most, and I repeat, most, not all, who went into those units were trying to avoid Vietnam.
at least they came home whole
cut the crap kramer