Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678
Results 176 to 194 of 194

Thread: Is the London attack........

  1. #176
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    I certainly was not specifically referring to anyone on this board. There is a liberal segment who believes that the US is reponsible for the terrorism, not the terrorists. It's obvious that the terrorists are willing to kill Muslims to meet their objectives, showing that they are not just "oppressed" by the West. They have a quasi-military objective, and they will kill any and all who get in their way.

    Understanding the enemy is fine, in the "intelligence" sense. No sense in understanding their motivations, otherwise, any more than there is need to understand what makes a child-killer tick: pure evil needs no investigation.

    As to how to deal with it, I know what DOESN'T work. Peace treaties, aquiescense, etc. will not stop an evil group, because they want evil, and that cannot be agreed to.

    Now, what other options are there? Destroy or imprision them. That's all there is to do.

    I understand those who don't want the US to use military force except when absolutely necessary. I do not understand those who don't want to use it, ever. It seems to me that searching and destroying terrorist networks is good use of the military. How many of us are willing to do nothing, or accede to their demands?
    Well, that answers that question.

    Think about how using the military to disrupt terrorists might work.

    These guys are likely to be working in a garage, or an apartment - like the guys in Leeds. Or in flight schools, like the 9/11 killers. Maybe there's a group of optometrist/terrorists, cooking up C-4 in dye pots, as we write.

    How do you use armed forces to find and neutralize that kind of threat? Hint: you don't. The army can't do a damn thing about them. The army can, say, invade a Muslim nation, and in the process create as many terrorists as it kills (that's one of those things that we should "now know") - and let's face it, we're killing the really stupid terrorists in Iraq; we don't know where the smart ones are, because we're spending most of our resources "spreading freedom". And one has to wonder if that strategy is particularly sound, since simple logic suggests that terror cells can exist in a free society much more easily than in an oppressive one (see 7/7, London).

    In your dismissal of "peace treaties and acquiescence", you leave out the most successful strategy of confrontation in history: the containment of the Soviet Union (a/k/a the "evil empire") after WWII, which ended in a clear victory for our side.

    Or do you think that "spreading freedom" behind the Iron Curtain by invasion and occupation would have been a more sensible strategy?

  2. #177
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    Spex, can you briefly outline a better strategy, in general?
    Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Reduce the disparity, in terms of wealth, between us and them. Allow them dignity, treat them with respect, do not exploit them. If we do this, they will have less reason to attack us. You get more with honey than vinegar.
    ...Just ask me...

  3. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996


    Translation: Liberal philosophy: Give them some of my tax money and fruits of my hard labor and the enemy will be appeased for a time. You will feel safer and my standard of living will decline. Well isn't that just spiffy?

    My solution: Kill all enemies of the United States, they will give no more trouble and cost less in the long run. Love your friends, destroy your enemies.

    Your Christian message for the day.

    No one forces the third world to live two centuries in the past except themselves. Can't see a reason why we shoud move one century back to move them one forward.

  4. #179
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Reduce the disparity, in terms of wealth, between us and them. Allow them dignity, treat them with respect, do not exploit them. If we do this, they will have less reason to attack us. You get more with honey than vinegar.
    Saddam Hussein was a formidable obstacle in the way of reducing the disparity, in terms of wealth, between the U.S. and most of the Iraqi population. Remember Saddam's "Oil For Palaces" program? We had to remove Hussein in order to begin the process that will eventually restore Iraq's future oil revenues to their rightful owners: The common people of Iraq.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  5. #180
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Shanbaum, you are the one of the best debaters I've had the pleasure of debating.

    Re: the Soviets, that was a more conventional situation. We were faced with, in essence, M.A.D., so we couldn't apply my military strategy. We had to compete economically. But let's face it: Communism imploded, and we did little to cause it's implosion. We did check its expansion, in Cuber and Korea, but not so successfully in Viet Nam, and we did go about showing how capitalism and democracy were superior systems.

    For the current challenge: Job #1 is to "do something". It is granted that there is no easy answer, at least yet. But there are some common-sense steps:
    1.) State-sponsored terrorism: No explanation necessary. Boom.
    2.) Terrorist organizations: Not a nation, so not technically an act of war, as we've conventionally known it. Can be considered more of a guerilla war, the hardest kind to fight. In history, the Romans for example would have put the boot to the whole country, or Joe Stalin would have mass-murdered millions. We are not so bloody, so we try to surgically excise the problem. It's difficult. It probably requires what I've heard Rumsfeld wants: a light, quick-response tactical force that uses technology, stealth, etc. It will also require a superb intelligence infrastructure.
    3.) Create a new layer of federal law-enforcement at the local level, or expand the FBI, e.g., to oversee minute details in our communities.

    Now, while that's common sense, I don't think the outcome will be very good.

    Indulge me for a moment. Throughout man's existence, there has been an inexorable trend. Whereas in the past wealth was owned by the few, economic wealth is in the process of diffusing to each individual. Power is diffusing as human rights. Whereas once the artistic aspects of culture were the provinces of kings, now more and more can live in a garden setting, or express one's self with the latest from Pottery Barn. Fame is becoming more commonplace, as Warhol predicted. And currently, we are all enjoying the benefits of information and education being free and accessible, unlike the private libraries of the educated, literate, elite. These are all testaments to the success of humanism.

    But there is a dark side. With all this comes the new-found power of an individual to be a destructive, evil force. This has not been the case in the past, when Jack The Ripper had limited abilities, or a Hitler had to have the right situation and extreme abilities to take advantage of. With the C-4 you describe, or the Terry-What's-his-name Oklahoma City fertilizer bombs, or even the simple handguns and rifles in the hands of deranged Columbine youth, a single, ordinary person can be a much, much larger problem than ever before. That's progress!:)

    So, what is society's response to a new, more powerful individual evil? We'll see, but I think it will be totalitarianism of the Orwellian kind (I haven't read that book, yet...). You can see it happening. Identity theft and electronic money leads to microchip implantation. Cyber-enhanced humans. Cloning. Eugenics. "Reproductive rights". Euthanasia.

    Needless to say, I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek there, but it's all becoming very, very possible. This is the view of a person who has little faith in human goodness, an anti-humanist. There are alternative futures.

    Not to cheapen this reality-based thread, but what is your prediction of the future, Mr. Shanbaum? What's your "vision-thing"?

  6. #181
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson

    Translation: Liberal philosophy: Give them some of my tax money and fruits of my hard labor and the enemy will be appeased for a time. You will feel safer and my standard of living will decline. Well isn't that just spiffy?
    Putting material possessions first?
    You're going to pay either way. This war has cost, what - $230 million so far. Ante up, Chip! That's your taxes being pi$$ed away. Your taxes are building their country. Nice, eh? Is it your position that it's better and less expensive to pay for killing, destruction, and rebuilding, than just treating them humanely in the first place
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson
    My solution: Kill all enemies of the United States,

    You know, about fourth on the list of "enemies of the United States" is "Southerners". You better watch out!
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson
    they will give no more trouble and cost less in the long run.
    Cost less? I don't think so, especially the cost in human lives. How many of our young men and women in the military die using my plan?

    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson
    Love your friends, destroy your enemies.
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson

    Your Christian message for the day.
    You mean Anti-Christian.:hammer:
    ...Just ask me...

  7. #182
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Saddam Hussein was a formidable obstacle in the way of reducing the disparity, in terms of wealth, between the U.S. and most of the Iraqi population. Remember Saddam's "Oil For Palaces" program? We had to remove Hussein in order to begin the process that will eventually restore Iraq's future oil revenues to their rightful owners: The common people of Iraq.
    I'm not going to defend Saddam, but surely you can think of other ways to remove him. I will also submit that actions by US interests allowed Saddam to be in power.
    ...Just ask me...

  8. #183
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    I'm not going to defend Saddam, but surely you can think of other ways to remove him.
    Other ways to remove Saddam Hussein? The U.S. tried to effect "regime change" in Iraq, by various means, from shortly after the end of the First Gulf War in 1991 until 2003, when we finally resorted to all out military force via "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

    From 1991 to 2003 -- Economic sanctions: Failed. Persuading the powerful Kurdish militias to move more forcefully against Saddam: Failed. Covert action to encourage elements within the Iraqi national army to overthrow Saddam: Failed. And that's just off the top of my head. I would guess that there would be a more complete account of this history in books such as Christoper Hitchens, A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

    Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have waited for the Iraqis to have another election and vote him out of power? There were occasional "elections" in Iraq under Saddam. And every time, Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    I will also submit that actions by U.S. interests allowed Saddam to be in power.
    It sounds like you are talking about ancient history. Ancient, as in before the First Gulf War (1991). Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for events and policies that occurred before he was elected President?
    Last edited by rinselberg; 07-28-2005 at 10:08 PM.

  9. #184
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Is the London attack the opening attack in the ultimate culture war?
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET July 27, 2005
    CAIRO, Egypt - Stunned by terror attacks in a Red Sea resort, Egyptians are in a remarkably frank debate about whether mosques and schools — and the government itself — should be blamed for promoting Islamic extremism ...

    MSNBC reports on reaction in Egypt after the massively lethal attack on Egypt's largest Red Sea resort:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8730963/

  10. #185
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    ...
    So, what is society's response to a new, more powerful individual evil? We'll see, but I think it will be totalitarianism of the Orwellian kind (I haven't read that book, yet...). ...
    Better intelligence. Infiltrate, identify who the evil-doers are, and allow our justice system to take care of them.
    ...Just ask me...

  11. #186
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have waited for the Iraqis to have another election and vote him out of power? There were occasional "elections" in Iraq under Saddam. And every time, Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote.
    I'd rather see good old assassination than the war we're in now, which, by the way, is:failing.

    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    It sounds like you are talking about ancient history. Ancient, as in before the First Gulf War (1991). Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for events and policies that occurred before he was elected President?
    Even before that. Where were we during Saddam's coup?

    Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.
    http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm
    ...Just ask me...

  12. #187
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    I'd rather see good old assassination than the war we're in now, which, by the way, is failing ...
    First of all, I think that you missed the point of my previous post. Killing Saddam, in and of itself, would not have accomplished anything. The suddenly "late" Saddam Hussein would have been immediately replaced by his younger son, Qusay Hussein -- just as bad or even worse. The killing of Saddam had to be part of a larger plot, like a coup d'état by elements within the Iraqi army (for example). And as I said in my post, all of the U.S.'s efforts along those lines (from 1991 to 2003) ended in failure.

    Secondly, I think that the long running insurgency in Iraq has exacted and continues to exact an economic and a human toll that is tragic beyond words. But the "war we're in now" (as you put it) is not failing. That's my assessment. I don't want to enlarge on that assessment before I make a third point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    ... Even before that: Where were we during Saddam's coup?
    http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm
    That was 1963. Maybe the U.S. did play a covert hand in the coup that brought Saddam to power in 1963. What of it? I have read many of your posts, and although you move from issue to issue and target to target, you're very consistent about pounding on the "W" Bush administration over Iraq. I can't quite make sense of you. Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for something that happened in 1963? Are you trying to "indict" the U.S. for all of its previous mistakes and fallacies (going back to 1776), regardless of what is happening more currently? I just don't "get" you.

  13. #188
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Man, Rinselburg, you seriously know your stuff. Are you Iraqi, or work for the CIA? Just kidding.

    Seriously, how do you get all your information?

  14. #189
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Thanks for the compliment, drk.

    I just browse the local paper from time to time (San Francisco Chronicle), including those obscure little articles tucked away in the back of the world news section. I follow what's on the MSNBC cable channel and MSNBC website a lot. I tend to skip over most of the domestic news stories, which is why I seldom get into all those other threads about Supreme Court nominees and what not.

    I'm an (amateur) foreign policy specialist, whose only objective is to try and maintain some foreign policy sanity here on the O'Board!
    Last edited by rinselberg; 07-28-2005 at 10:06 PM.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  15. #190
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    I have read many of your posts, and although you move from issue to issue and target to target, you're very consistent about pounding on the "W" Bush administration over Iraq. I can't quite make sense of you. Are you trying to hold George W. Bush responsible for something that happened in 1963? Are you trying to "indict" the U.S. for all of its previous mistakes and fallacies (going back to 1776), regardless of what is happening more currently? I just don't "get" you.
    If you've been following the posts, what you'll notice is that I've said that our treatment of the middle east has been a motivating factor in their responding with terrorism. And yes, our actions started long ago. And no, it was not just our government's actions. I did not vary on issue or target.

    I will hold anyone responsible for their actions, regardless of how long ago it was. Don't get me started on the Spanish Inquisition.
    ...Just ask me...

  16. #191
    Forever Liz's Dad Steve Machol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Back in AZ
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    10,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    I will hold anyone responsible for their actions, regardless of how long ago it was. Don't get me started on the Spanish Inquisition.
    Now would be a good time for Michael Palin (of Monty Python fame) to burst in saying:

    NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!


    OptiBoard Administrator
    ----
    OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.

  17. #192
    Master OptiBoarder Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    1,509


    :D
    "It's not impossible. I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home."


  18. #193
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    "Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
    Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency....
    Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...
    and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
    Our four... no...
    Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...
    are such elements as fear, surprise...
    I'll come in again."
    ...Just ask me...

  19. #194
    Master OptiBoarder chm2023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Camp Hill/NYC
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,196
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson


    Translation: Liberal philosophy: Give them some of my tax money and fruits of my hard labor and the enemy will be appeased for a time. You will feel safer and my standard of living will decline. Well isn't that just spiffy?

    My solution: Kill all enemies of the United States, they will give no more trouble and cost less in the long run. Love your friends, destroy your enemies.

    Your Christian message for the day.

    No one forces the third world to live two centuries in the past except themselves. Can't see a reason why we shoud move one century back to move them one forward.
    Herein lies the problem: we are still thinking that there is a military solution to an idealogical conflict. We need to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the great majority of Muslims who are not supporters of the radicals/terrorists and yet are not necessarily supporters of ours.

    Killing all the enemies of the United States: well given quite a few of them are in Iraq, I suppose we could carpet bomb, revisiting that high point of US military history wherein we destroyed villages in order to save them. Like Seinfeld says: no learning, no hugging. Lord have mercy.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oakley Retail Starting in London
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-16-2005, 11:57 AM
  2. U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
    By Steve Machol in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 06:44 PM
  3. Calling London
    By Jedi in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-11-2003, 09:00 AM
  4. London terror alert.
    By optispares in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-12-2003, 02:15 AM
  5. Big Brother is Watching London
    By Joann Raytar in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-23-2002, 09:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •