And as for our nations respective military might - we are both stretched to breaking point in Iraq, your tours of duty are twice as long as the UK army - and a third of your troops in country are National Guard. Again, stones in glass houses.

I don’t think a lot of people, and this includes AMericans, realizes just what is going on with our military. Not surprising, the Generals keep talking about being stretched. The thing is, the reason why we rotate so many divisions and brigades to Iraq and back to the US, is because we are spreading the combat experience. A military force is no good if it is too green to face the enemy. If you don’t pull your forces back to the homefront and let them teach others the tricks of the trade, you run the risk of burning out your most experienced combat veterans. Japan did that and lost all their experienced pilots, and had no one left to train the new pilots, and then got slaughtered in the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

Besides, the National Guard wants its piece of the action too, as with the Marines, you can’t really keep combat commanders away from Tours of Duty. That’s like, you know, trying to tell someone if they do X, they will have more promotions. They’ll do X, be assured of that. One of the reasons for the low tour of duty length. In Vietnam it was like years. In Iraq? 12 months, just a bout.

What this actually means is that the US military is almost as good as we appear on paper, if not better. Russia has 1 million people in their army, but only pocking 40,000 can fight. That’s more than a 7 to 3 logistics ratio. RUSSIA is stretched. They don’t have the troops to put somewhere else in the world, because ALL of them are busy in Chechnya or thereabouts.

TWO THIRDS of US troops are here at home, training, basically waiting to be deployed. This doesn’t include the Navy and Air Force. They’re on continous patrols and tours. Which beside the air strikes and support, really isn’t doing much of anything in their free time, except (guess) train.

Amateurs can call that stretched, I call it a lean mean fighting machine. At least for the US.

I’ll tell you wgy iu don’t care about our position relative one religion to another - IT’S HOOEY (religion in general).

I’ll remember that when the Islamics string you up in the streets 20 years from now, for violating Sharia Law.

but you can not destroy a weapon -

Like I said, guerrila wars are eating soup with a knife. Sure, it might take a while, but you can get it done eventually with determination. There is no cannot in reality.

Those “idiots” include the President of Iran, the leader(or figurehead) of a terror-sponsoring state. Those “idiots” seem to include a large part of the Muslim world.

My paranoia is perfectly intact for good reason - “we” are involved in a war without end against an “enemy” who is nebulous, without home state and can appear anywhere at anytime. But i honestly don’t really mind, they have a job to kill me - they haven’t suceeded (thus far) - and my government whom are entrusted as protector of my rights as an idividual are also failing.

The potential of a grisly death is one i am fully prepared for….. i can corss the street and die tommorrow - my method of death doesn’t really concern me. “Live free or die”…… i believe was once a (now apparently misguided) rallying call from your side of the pond.

Talk about confusing! Wozza writes of what president with the expanded powers they now have will call the war over?- and because of his worries about expanded US Presidential power(none of which are unprecedented in times of war) I mention paranoia and he replies with a rambling missive about “war without end,” against a “nebulous enemy.” But he doesn’t mind the terrorists! Why? Because it is their job!!! At this point one might pause and wonder about the mentality that considers terrorism a “job.” But it gets even stranger. He goes on to concede that the terrorists haven’t killed him but is angry at the government because the government hasn’t done enough to protect his “rights as an individual.” Wozza may be murdered by terrorists but he doesn’t care about that; that’s just their “job.” He’s prepared for and reconciled to being murdered, that’s nothing, a minor point, apparently. What really worries wozza and gets him enflamed is that reading lists at US libraries might be perused by the FBI. The lack of priorities in anti-war thinking is truly a wonder to behold.

I was puzzled by wuzzo’s “Senior citizens Peace groups” reference. I have news for wuzzo. Peace Fresno has nothing much to do with senior citizens. Peace Fresno is an interesting anti-war group who sends delegates to Anti-American conferences in Pakistan. I’ve heard that there are a few Muslims in Pakistan. Doesn’t this attendance constitute “Islamic overtones,” or maybe ‘Islamic connection’ would be a more apt phrase? Didn’t some of the London bombers visit Pakistan just before the bombings? I think I want my government keeping an eye on those who attend Anti-American conferences in Pakistan, just in case. The group is probably harmless but better safe than sorry, eh? Ninety-nine percent of intelligence is useless, it’s that one percent that saves lives. BTW, judging from a placard carried by them in a demonstration, Peace Fresno apparently believes the US government was in on 9/11. What a bunch of “idiots,” eh?

http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/1674284.php

Scroll down the page to the second photo and observe the white sign on the right. Of the seven people whose faces are shown, only one could be classified as a senior citizen – the other six seem pretty young. I ran across many photos of Peace Fresno marches and saw mainly young faces – very few senior citizens.

Actually, I don’t mind merely being “tolerated” as a person or a set of values, toleration speaks a lot about how grown up a culture is.

I don’t mind being tolerated either, but if it takes bending over so the terrorists can have a better angle in order to be tolerated, I’ll pass.

In case you’re out there somewhere.

You assert that the war has allowed our President to grab powers far in excess of those he should have. The fact of the matter is that British and United State governmental sytems are very different; one major difference being that the U.S. has a written Consitution and a Bill of Rights listing specific rights.

In the U.S. the President has certain powers, very broad ones, derived from our written constitution; one of these is his role as Commander in Chief. Then there are other powers that Presidents have traditionally had by extension or by custom. In the current political climate, people opposed to President Bush have decided to characterize his use of his powers of office, ones used by prior Presidents–Bill Clinton comes to mind–and which usually are a not subject to very much question, as illigitimate. This is usually a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.

And goodnight and good luck - i’m gonna not check back on this thread.

my last post was basically a collection bullet point replies to points about my previous posts.

————————
But i would caution against your optimism regarding your own constitution - in WW2 there was going to be a surrender there had to be a definitive cut off point as to how long restrictions would remain in force.
And the President has heretofor unfound powers - he has taken “inherent powers of the office” far beyond any of those granted to any previous President without statute.
I’m not claiming the UK is Superior - or the US inferior, just that i have a feeling we are never going to be as free again as we were.

And as for our nations respective military might - we are both stretched to breaking point in Iraq, your tours of duty are twice as long as the UK army - and a third of your troops in country are National Guard. Again, stones in glass houses.

The British Forces are the least well equipped, but best trained in combat and by far better peace keeprs and policemen.
————————-
I do have a fairly British view of things, guilty as charged - it’s less militaristic for starters. I do not give a hoot if islam becomes the majority religion in the UK, or who lives where - as for Finsbury Park - the guy could have been arrested and deported years ago under legislation from the 1800’s. The fact he wasn’t is a disgrace - no argument.
I’ll tell you wgy iu don’t care about our position relative one religion to another - IT’S HOOEY (religion in general).
—————————-

And i’m going to repeat - the War On Terror s going to go the same way as the war on drugs - nowhere.

I know how much military (reserve) muscle the US has, and your relative Civillian populations, god flag and country patriotism - that is all taken as a gimme - but you can not destroy a weapon - which is what Terror is.
You can reduce it, make it less appealing, kill lots of people, use orange jumpsuits, pig farmers from New Orleans can go to Tikrit for 6months at a time while their farms fold and hurricanes go unrepaired - but you can not and will not stop people wanting to kill other people for a belief.

The number one method of frustrating islamists lies completely outside the scope of your local police — including SWAT: intelligence penetration. These players aren’t unhappy voters: they’re subversive aliens supported by a foreign power.

The British Army is already neutered by domestic politics. Time to return home.

As it stands, the Iranians have successfully played everyone for fools: she already has the bomb. She used the Nork/ Israeli gambit: cross over on the sly and never, never test. Just use proven conservative designs.

The MSM and all the world’s governments are successfully concentrating all attention on highly enriched uranium 235 as THE way to the bomb.

However, plutonium is much easier to produce and has been the route to the bomb for: Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, ….

All that is needed is heavy water and a simple swimming pool converter.

Iran has had heavy water production capacity since 1995. (IAEA report)

Iran has skied right through every redline: hence the quiet.

The peace has been raped.

It does appear that Iran only has a very limited nuclear inventory. Her ability to deliver is weak. As we breathe she is mating up missile and nuke.

That’s why Israel is reaching for the trigger.

FDR waited and waited — for Pearl Harbor. He didn’t have a political base for anti-Axis warfare.

Bush is forced down the same path. The trigger event in our time figures to be a whopper.

The mullahs are ‘off the hook’ — they are plunge bettors.

The invite to submit to Islam is a gauntlet. BEWARE.

People have to realize where wozza is coming from. It is not an American centric viewpoint. Meaning, he does not use the resources available to America, when he makes his conclusions about winning or not winning.

Obviouslly your analysis of any war will differ ebased upon what kind of resources you can draw upon. Britain draws upon a very different resource, both civilian and military, than the US.

You can call it paranoia or not, but if I was British, I wouldn’t trust the British government with securing individual liberty. Their constitution is NOT the US Constitution. People have got to remember that, and act more cosmopolitan. Everything’s not about how parochial we are.

Wozza’s comments appear different if you take it to mean he speaks solely about his own country. However, if he seeks to apply this to America, then he’d be dead wrong. Cosmopolitan, remember, not parochialism.

The US can withstand civil rights curtailments, as we did in WWII and the Civ War.

Two reasons.

We got the 2nd Ammendment and we have 1 gun per 1 person in America. (1 person owns more than one gun, so not everyone in America owns a gun) The other reason is that American uses wars to solve problems, not just to go around trashing cities and battlefields. The Europeans have a horrid track record with their wars, therefore all those civil rights limitations will get worse and worse, because their wars keep going on and on like WWI to WWII. They can’t get enough of war, they try their hardest to come up with humiliating peace treaties to piss their enemies off, and then skimp on their military.

You’r jumping around like a flea on a hot griddle,stringing thoughts together with no real connection between them, it seems to me.

As for your last comment about the measure of a mature civilization being the amount of toleration it has, some things just shouldn’t be tolerated.

You may congratulate yourself on what a tolerant fellow you are when you allow one of the Muslim imams in Britain, say at the Finsbury Mosque, to call for the eradication of Christians and Jews and encourage acts of terrorism. Me, I guess I must not be so civilized because I’d shut him down and drop kick him back to what ever hell hole he came from. Beheadings may be sanctioned by historical precedent or the Koran, but I ‘m not about to “understand the rage” or sympatiize with the “shame and victimization” felt by the beheader; he needs to be put down like the rabid dog he is.

To be blunt, it looks like political correctness, wishful thinking and lack of resolve have already put the U.K. in a perilous situation vis-a-vis its Muslim population and the trends don’t look favorable. I don’t think the U.S. should follow your prescriptions at all.

Finally, if you believe that WE CAN’T WIN, then you should be scouting out a local mosque and some long robes right now, cause you’re gonna need this information in the not so distant future.

The potential of a grisly death is one i am fully prepared for….. i can corss the street and die tommorrow - my method of death doesn’t really concern me. “Live free or die”…… i believe was once a (now apparently misguided) rallying call from your side of the pond.
————————-
Peace Fresno infiltrated by police:
http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/02/1680492.php
————————–
I have no confidence in a Military organisation being able to do anything other than wage war - it is after all what they are trained for.
—————————–
“lets not fight terrorism for risk that it might enflame people”….. way to be intellectually honest!.
I’ve outlined that we should be infiltrating these groups, refocussing our intelligence services on them, staying on the ball in afghanistan - last time i checked that wasn’t classified as giving terrorists a pass.

————————-
UK Unemployment
“The unemployment rate, on the ILO definition, was 5.1 per cent in the three months to February 2006, up 0.1 per cent from the three months to November 2005 and up 0.4 per cent over the year.”
—————————-
i’m not alone in hyperbole then regardong the FBi and library loans……
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/MN14634.DTL

——————————

Actually, i don’t mind merely being “tolderated” as a person or a set of values, toleration speaks alot about how grown up a culture is.

So i’m glad we agree.

Maybe the problem is defining “law enforcement model.” I have no problem with police pursuing and arresting terrorists. Domestic police SWAT teams are military-like enough for me. But I don’t think terrorists should be tried in civilian courts; a military tribunal is the proper venue for their kind. To my mind the ideal situation is where the police and the military work together.

Idle talk of lobbing “nukes” is scary - the newborn children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still being born with birth defects, and the less said about chernobyl the better. Nukes do not target anyone - they target everyone.

I would be in favor of using nukes only if WMD was used against the US, otherwise our conventional weaponry will do nicely. But if ever a terrorist detonates a nuke in the US, say like today, I would expect Iran and Syria to be annihilated. Why? Because Iran and Syria have sponsored terror and the nuke would have probably come from them. Evidently terror sponsoring despots believe there’s safety in anonymity and lack of courtroom-level proof. But I believe they only guarantee that their fellow terror-sponsors in neighboring countries will be annihilated along with themselves. If that terrible day ever comes no US President will fail to act simply because it would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt which despot actually did the deed.

And if these Islamic Radicals are as desperate as they are - why would they respond to the logic of diminishing returns?…. you can’t call them madmen and then argue they will respond to a numbers game.

True, the Islamic terrorists are probably immune to the possibility of death but that is no reason to stop killing them. The despots who employ them may be a bit easier to attune to reality but if they’re not they will ultimately end up getting a nuke down the old palace chimney, which ought to be very convincing and very final.

Biological and Chemical weapons are exceptionally difficult to deploy effectively to cause mass death and are capable of being made up in bedrooms and garden sheds so as to be almost impossible to stop. Invading the mid-east to prevent non-weaponisable WMD falling into the hands of terrorists who then have to traverse the globe with them to reach america was, i suppose one way of trying to do “something rather than nothing”. Its a shame, because i could whip up a batch of nasties in my kitchen, and the place to obtain loose nukes is Tblisi - not Tikrit. They are mad, not dumb.

No, they’re not dumb. They are smart enough to figure that there will be many who will throw up their hands and continue a failed diplomacy when faced with ruthless and unappeasable terror. They play the MSM and the Left like a violin. But you’ve gotten some other things wrong. The “batch of nasties” cooked up in your living quarters would indeed be “exceptionally difficult to deploy effectively.” But the type of “nasties” that come from a high-level weapons development system, as was in Iraq when Saddam used just such a product to kill Kurds, have the capability to be deployed very effectively.

I’m not worried about low-level gassings, bombings and biological skullduggery, such as the Postal anthrax episode or Oklahoma City bombing, none of which should be cause for retaliation, much less employing nuclear weaponry. Granted, that there are any number of vilely creative methods and techniques with which individuals could cause low-level murder and havoc; those can be lived with and dealt with.

What worries me is that extremely deadly weapons, that as of now can only be produced by nations, could be given to the terrorists and used to murder a large number of victims. It that were to happen in the US, or for that matter, Great Britain, I believe the retaliation would kill at least several millions and most of them would be Muslims. Allowing Iran to arm itself with nukes, which will probably occur, is the first step in that horrifying direction.

it isn’t a question of Britain or America (or combined) beating terrorism…… no-one can do it, no where, no when no how. People can use different methods to stop attacks here and there - but also spreading the fear of a terror attack is doing the terrorists work.

Here’s yet another example of the Fighting Terrorism Causes Terrorism theme. wozza, what we need to do is topple a couple more despots, namely Iran and Syria. We need to make it clear to these nations that their days of waging war by proxy against the US without fear of retaliation are over. I don’t believe we will, you understand, but we could save a lot of carnage later on if we would.

if someone has a bomb then security measures on a subway are not going to stop them letting off that bomb somewhere - it just won’t be on a subway that time.

Yeah, but at least the subway system isn’t stopped. Low-grade bombers can be lived with, witness the IRA bombings, the Palestinian bombings. But you have to keep the systems running.

I live cheek by jowl with hundreds and thousands of Muslims, and it was a vocal minority who took to the streets about the prophet cartoons, and none (I know of) were supportive of 11/09.

Wozza, with all due respect, your anecdotal musings do little to change my mind.

britain has some record low unemployment numbers, and a very stable economy that isn’t being propped up on foreign debt.
(stones in glass houses)

Ahem … I should have done a bit more research, your point is well-taken about the British economy, which seems to be robust. I was going by the quote below:

“The employment rate for people of working age was 74.5 per cent for the three months ending in February 2006. This is unchanged over the quarter but down 0.4 over the year.”

… which I took to mean unemployment was 25.5%, a figure more in line with a depression, an embarrassing misreading of the article. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

Americans are no longer free to borrow library books without fear of a rap on the door from the FBI.

Hyperbole

Former Vice Presidents and sitting senators end up on “no fly lists”, which restrict their ability to fly (or a freedom to fly)

So the answer is to forget about flight security? Because of a couple of mistakes? A couple of bigshots were inconvenienced so do away with any precautions? Whoa!

Senior citizens Peace groups with no islamic overtones were being infiltrated by the FBI in california.

Link, please.

And these restrictions will never go away - because no one can win the war on terror, because the premise is false. Not even Al Gonzalez knows when it’s going to be over - are they going to surrender and what president with the expanded powers they now have will call the war over?

Don’t look now but your paranoia is showing.

face it, it is perpetual war for perpetual peace, and the grab by the center of power will go unrestrained in time of war (and if the war never ends….. the only beneficiaries are Central Government and arms manufacturers.

Ahah! Conspiracy theories. wozza, would you by any chance think the US government was in on 9/11?

If Americans wanted to win the “war on terror” they wouldn’t have voted for the guy who wants them in hock to foreign nations and refused to search all container ships entering the USA. two very simple things that could have been done, but weren’t and will not be.

I agree that being in hock to foreign nations and not searching containers is not good. I don’t agree that Bush’s opponent would have been a better fighter against terrorism.

… the wrong way is to … enflame people who would otherwise tolerate us …

Let’s not fight terrorism. Why? Because it enflames people. If we just wouldn’t insist on enflaming them they would “tolerate us.”

That’s cause the Brits ordered their SAS to facilitate the “peace process”, not to help the IRA against the Orange man death squads. Obviously that’s not going to make you real popular with the IRA when you prevent the IRA from taking out the Orangemen terroists, but you ALSO don’t freaking do anything about the Orangemen either.

American strategy is much more superior. We take out the terroists, and we get the Sunnis on our side and the Kurds, and we get the Shia on our side. Americans do take sides. The Brits ordered their military to not take sides, and nobody likes a neutral party that obstructs both party’s goals.

I said this before, America uses war to solve problems, Europe can’t use war to solve problems. Meaning, America for whatever reasons, can use our military to accomplish goals other than killing people. Britain and Europe does not know how to use their military to accomplish goals other than killing people. WWI and WWII proved that beyond a doubt.

Americans are no longer free to borrow library books without fear of a rap on the door from the FBI.

I read a lot of books. Trust me, FBI ain’t knocking on my door.

face it, it is perpetual war for perpetual peace, and the grab by the center of power wil go unrestrained in time of war (and if the war never ends….. the only beneficiarys are Central Government and arms manufacturers.

HIstorically Europe makes lots of wars, it is America that ends them.

—————–
so, basically - the law enforcement model works?. Hey, i couldn’t agree more.

Do you not recall the rhetoric about “pre 9/11 law enforcement ways”…… it is the police and only the police (and fbi) who can deal with guys hoarding fertiliser to make bombs with….. saying the “law enforcement model” doesn’t work is hooey.

So i’m glad we agree.

Listen, Britain tried the Military only option in Northern Ireland, it didn’t work - it hardened oposition and the community was harder to infiltrate than ever.

I’m not saying using the military is wrong in all circumstances - Afghanistan was the right war (were losing it now, different issue).
———————–
Idle talk of lobbing “nukes” is scary - the newborn children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still being born with birth defects, and the less said about chernobyl the better. Nukes do not target anyone - they target everyone.

And if these Islamic Radicals are as desperate as they are - why would they respond to the logic of diminishing returns?…. you can’t call them madmen and then argue they will respond to a numbers game.
—————————
When i mentioned hamburg (home to the 11/9 hijackers, thats where they were prior)
———————-
As for WMD - it is the most chronic misnoma Biological and Chemical weapons are exceptionally difficult to deploy effectively to cause mass death and are capable of being made up in bedrooms and garden sheds so as to be almost impossible to stop. Invading the mid-east to prevent non-weaponisable WMD falling into the hands of terrorists who then have to traverse the globe with them to reach america was, i suppose one way of trying to do “something rather than nothing”. Its a shame, because i could whip up a batch of nasties in my kitchen, and the place to obtain loose nukes is Tblisi - not Tikrit. They are mad, not dumb.
————————
it isn’t a question of Britain or America (or combined) beating terrorism…… no-one can do it, no where, no when no how. People can use different methods to stop attacks here and there - but also spreading the fear of a terror attack is doing the terrorists work.

I will tell you why we have lost as soon as someone has made a bomb -
THEY HAVE A BOMB, DEPLOYABLE ANYWHERE THEY CHOOSE, KILLING AS MANY AS THEY WISH AT RANDOM.
My point is that if someone has a bomb then security measures on a subway are not going to stop them letting off that bomb somewhere - it just won’t be on a subway that time.
Can you extrapolate victory for the good guys anywhere in that scenario?
—————————-
I live cheek by jowl with hyndres and thousands of Muslims, and it was a vocal mnority who took to the streets about the prophet cartoons, and none (i know of) were supportive of 11/09.

——————————–
britain has some record low unemployment numbers, and a very stable economy that isn’t being propped up on foreign debt.
(stones in glass houses)
————————

Americans are no longer free to borrow library books without fear of a rap on the door from the FBI.

Former Vice Presidents and sitting senators end up on “no fly lists”, which restrict their ability to fly (or a freedom to fly)

Senior citizens Peace groups with no islamic overtones were being infiltrated by the FBI in california.

And these restrictions will never go away - because no one can win the war on terror, because the premise is false. Not even Al Gonzalez knows when it’s going to be over - are they going to surrender,a nd what president with the expanded powers they now have will call the war over?.

face it, it is perpetual war for perpetual peace, and the grab by the center of power wil go unrestrained in time of war (and if the war never ends….. the only beneficiarys are Central Government and arms manufacturers.

If americans wanted to win the “war on terror” they wouldn’t have voted for the guy who wants them in hock to foreign nations and refused to search all container ships entering the USA.

two very simple things that could have been done, but weren’t and will not be.

Britain now has some of the worst laws in the developed world on curtailing free speech - the glorification of terrorism bill and the Religious Hatred bill passed last year are crimes.
All offences being created were just tabloid PR pushes that did nothing to make the UK safer.

The UK are going about things the right way and wrong way - dilligent local policing, infiltrating extremeist cliques and proper planning for catastrophes - the wrong way is to stifle all “unhelpful” speech and enflame people who would otherwise tolerate us by flying innocent people around the globe due to botched data entry of a Northern Alliance gold rush.

Here we go with the rope a dope again. Trying to run away from the facts might be helpful, if people didn’t believe that the US Army was doing nothing until the CBS cape crusaders showed Abu Ghraib to the public.

Do you think that even the lowest of the perpetrators at AbuGhraib would have appeared before a military Court had someone not gotten careless with where they posted that video?

If that Probligo’s donnybrook, then so be it. Presumably Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with Iraq, it is rather an indication of Rummy and Co and the fascistic dictators in charge or some such.

There is none, for the simple reason that I made observations on what happens in war, not any one specific war.

As you can see, probligo’s belief that Abu Ghraib is not specific to one way, but something done commonly by the US in all wars. Talk about self-rationalization.

People who got a problem using google, I feel sorry for.

Woza
My main focus was that Britain, and Spain, were being told how to wage “wars on terror” by a noob, pure and simple.

Anyone know what a noob is?

douglas
Thanks for the screed. I guess then that there’s no point in flaming you then…
I’m not selling you my flame thrower man, you got to get your fuel air dispersal explosives somewhere else.

Wozza has a point, guys. I mean just look at Britain and compare it to America, and you will see obviously what happens when a civilization reacts in a wrong manner to threats, and crushes dissent in the process.

I really don’t understand that by making ourselves less free in the fight against people who want us to be less free that then makes us winners.

Most people would agree on principle that you don’t want to become the enemy you fight, it would be pointless to take down one tyranny and replace it with another. However, the disagreement is always in the details, the devil is also in the details. The details are of course, which country, Britain or America, represents the better philosophy towards handling terroists and domestic insurgents?

I favor America, wozza favors someone else. What can we say? Nothing. You go your way, we go our way, and we’ll find out like a thousand years in the future who was right.

And people are still talking about this as a war that can be won….. WE CAN NOT WIN.

True, Britain cannot win without the United States. But the United States can win without Britain. It’ll be longer, but ohh so much easier.

The logic concerning fighting terror as a tactic is pretty easy. How do you get people to do what you want and follow your rules? Why you just get such an overwhelming force, that the rewards are puny compared to the risks. Any group caught doing terrorism, will be given a nuke and then have it detonated in their strongholds, nation or no nation. Anyone individually caught doing terrorism, will be staked, with a short stake, and everyone can watch them slowly die. Or crucifixion, and watch them slowly choke to death.

THe logic is pretty simple. It’s the fact that Bush won’t do what is necessary to accomplish the elimination of terror, that can be criticized. Not the goal.

The Geneva Conventions, MAD, deterence, all were able to prevent certain things from being used. Whether that be torture of POWs, nuclear obliteration of the planet, or various other things.

The reason why people complain about fighting terror as a tactic is because they either don’t know how to stop terror or they aren’t willing to do what is necessary to stop those tactics.

They might come back and say you can’t solve a problem by becoming the problem. Basically you can’t use fire to fight fire. Well you can, Californian fire fighters do it all the time by firing the brush so that the Firestorm can’t use it as fuel. Police use force to stop the use of force on citizens by other citizens. The government uses force, to stop other governments from using force on them.

This is how the world works, people, and the logic is inescapable. Even to those who don’t have the will, it is inescapable.

by the way, non sequitors don’t mean “whatever probligo disagrees with” Just to make that clear.

Just a suggestion: Maybe if y’all got a bit more ‘military’ in outlook y’all might fare better in the bombing department.

I would direct people to my immediate posts after 7/7, which focussed on Bill Bennet (my loathing thereof) and a long subsequent argument with one of the WW3 brigade, but it wasn’t pretty or edifying. My main focus was that Britain, and Spain, were being told how to wage “wars on terror” by a noob, pure and simple.

I totally agree about Bill Bennet. I’ve never liked his brand of pious platitudes.

*citizens should not ceede their rights to their Government - the price of living in an open society is that it is Open.

A society in war cannot be as “open” as it might be if it were not under attack, especially when the enemy uses that openness as part of their death-dealing tactics. Loose lips sink ships.

*Islam is not the problem anymore than individual christians were during the crusades. The vast majority of the Muslim world is not destroying the Manhatten skyline on a daily basis.

No, the vast majority of the Muslim world is cheering and supporting those who have destroyed a significant part the Manhattan skyline. The vast majority of the Muslim world are enablers of terrorism. Without the tacit approval and support of the majority of the Muslim world and the aid and employment of certain Muslim despots the terrorists couldn’t do very well.

*don’t make permanent tax cuts during “WW3″, during periods of record national debt (owned by foreigners).

Instead of giving economic advice to a country whose economy is thriving why don’t you tend to the dreadful unemployment in Great Britain?

*chasing terrorists around the world is fine and dandy - until you reach the uncomfortable realissation that you have to park tanks outside towerblocks in Hamburg to stop the people threatening you (unless you use police).

I have no idea what wozza means with this. Perhaps wozza would elaborate.

*when someone reaches a subway station with a bomb then you have already lost the fight - inhibiting the flow of comuters does nothing for protection. It only changes which part of the city is to be blown up. Because it will happen

When someone reaches a subway station with a bomb it probably means intelligence agencies are hobbled by unrealistic restrictions.

*there will always be people willing to kill other people over a belief.

And there will always be people who try to stop them. Let’s hope the second group prevails in this WW3 that we find ourselves in.

*western civilisation will not fall because poeple “hate us for our freedom”. Damnit, i thought we were made of some strong stuff… if our nations can survive civil wars, and Germany and Japan and france all trying to destroy us we can get through this.

The problem is that certain horrific weapons look like they are about to fall into the hands of the destroyers. I don’t want my government standing idly by while that happens.

*the law enforcement model of combating terrorism is not a bad one. Would you rather have Delta force arresting suspected terrorists in Manhattan?, tanks on the streets?. The gap between the rhetoric and reality does not stack up.

Naw, we don’t need Delta force for arrests in Manhattan, we have the NYPD. They will arrest the suspected terrorists well enough. Afterwards, of course, they should turn them over to the military, this being a war and not a bank robbery. And tanks on the streets will not be necessary, just a paddywagon, which should then deliver them to a military tribunal.

Wozza, I dont know what they’re showing you on BBC, but we are not using the military to capture terrorists in the US. Item refuted.

I also dont understand what it is you feel are making us “less free.” Please provide an example.

refute this:
a young urban new york Muslim becomes radicalised in a mosque….. he then goes onto to buy fertiliser and store it in a garage, he then purchases accelerants. AT which point do the military step in?
Does the suspicious shop keeper (selling tonnes of fertiliser to a man in a towerblock) call the US Army or Marines?………. do these people then snatch him from his bed in the dead of night?

OR do the police stake out his garage, find out who he has been associating with, swap the fertiliser for an inert substance and then arrest him when the plot is fully uncovered and his cohorts unmasked?

It is just common sense, nothing to do with not wanting to catch people. If you don’t HAVE to use EVERY element at your disposal DON’T.

I really don’t understand that by making ourselves less free in the fight against people who want us to be less free that then makes us winners.

And i woiuld rather live with the threat hanging over me of not making my journey (as i do already) than live with tanks on the streets or in a broader national security state (than we have already).

And people are still talking about this as a war that can be won….. WE CAN NOT WIN. And unless parliamentary democracy falls to martial law or Ossama is broadcasting from the Oval office THEY CAN NOT WIN.

You can not defeat terror being used as a weapon anymore than you can say “all ak47s are now illegal every where in the world”…… it won’t stop them being used or carried. Waging war on the weapon of “terror” is obscene in logic. There will always and have always been groups of inidividuals or solo individuals willing to seek to create fear or enduce mass murder put put across their message.
I’M NOT SAYING THAT’S RIGHT, JUST THE WAY THE WORLD HAS AND ALWAYS WILL OPERATE. I don’t want us not to defeat “them”, it’s just - we can’t, they can’t.
They are not able to win, but we are able to lose - and that loss will be in the freedoms all of us should have as righst (association, free speech and public protest, taking out library books, etc etc)
#
And as for that “touchy feely” cheap shot…… no body wants to accomodate people who’s image of the western world is one of a massive cartoonish X.

But we do have to make sure that our “allies” take the fight of ideas in to the mosques in Islamabad, Kabul and into the radical schools - teach the version of Islam that my friends live by as my neighbours - that of Peace and prayer.
W

So, what’s your point?

That an open society shouldn’t use all the forces at its command to find and stop terrorists because to do so would make that society less open? That we should fight terrorism with a criminal justice not military approach and just accept any casualties that arise from the less effective criminal approach as just the necessary price of that openness? At some point the bodies start to be piled too high on one side of the scales for mere “openness” to equal their weight.

Or is your point that if we haven’t done all sorts of warm and fuzzy things to prevent terrorists from wanting to kill us “its too late” and we should, what, accept the casualties they cause as our our punishment for being insufficiently multicultural and understanding of differences?

Its always the extreme example–tanks in the street, gibbets in the square, pillboxes and razorwire on every block–to try to end debate and direct thought away from what is really happening and is much more likely to happen.

But, I’ll bite. Tanks in the street may not make a good tourist poster, but if those tanks are what we have to do, if they mean we win and the terrorists lose, I say, bring ‘em on! I do not think that preserving “openness” at the price of our defeat by Islamic fundamentalists, who would then destroy our civilization, “openness” included, is an idealistic battle that I want to win.

Thanks for the screed. I guess then that there’s no point in flaming you then…

There is no reason.

In some quarters, true enough.

It happens whereever there are humans at war.

It happens whenever there are humans at war.

It’s all the same, whoever it is, right? Right. If you say so.

Do not imagine, even for a moment that the horror and the evil is limited to just one religion.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, it’s all the same.

There is nothing that can justify torture.

There is nothing that can justify the deliberate taking of a human life.

If you say so, I respectfully disagree. I’d even kill someone attempting to kill you if I could.

So, did we really get you wrong? I don’t think so.

I would direct people to my immediate posts after 7/7, which focussed on Bill Bennet (my loathing thereof) and a long subsequent argument with one of the WW3 brigade, but it wasn’t pretty or edifying.

My main focus was that Britain, and Spain, were being told how to wage “wars on terror” by a noob, pure and simple.

I will tell you once, because i’m not getting into a flame filled argument here……..

*citizens should not ceede their rights to their Government - the price of living in an open society is that it is Open.

*Islam is not the problem anymore than individual christians were during the crusades. The vast majority of the Muslim world is not destroying the Manhatten skyline on a daily basis.

*don’t make permanent tax cuts during “WW3″, during periods of record national debt (owned by foreigners).

*chasing terrorists around the world is fine and dandy - until you reach the uncomfortable realissation that you have to park tanks outside towerblocks in Hamburg to stop the people threatening you (unless you use police).

*when someone reaches a subway station with a bomb then you have already lost the fight - inhibiting the flow of comuters does nothing for protection. It only changes which part of the city is to be blown up. Because it will happen

*there will always be people willing to kill other people over a belief.

*western civilisation will not fall because poeple “hate us for our freedom”. Damnit, i thought we were made of some strong stuff… if our nations can survive civil wars, and Germany and Japan and france all trying to destroy us we can get through this.

*the law enforcement model of combatting terrorism is not a bad one. Would you rather have Delta force arresting suspected terrorists in Manhatten?, tanks on the streets?. The gap between the rhetoric and reality does not stack up.

The fact remains that this little donnybrook is a total non-sequitur, unless perhaps you can show me where in my original post I made ANY reference to the US or Iraq. There is none, for the simple reason that I made observations on what happens in war, not any one specific war.

I also am shamed for being part of a stupid little sh!t-fight started by people with small minds trying to score a political point of some kind. It demeans the original intent of the thread, an intent with which I am 100% in agreement.

I leave my original post to stand as my word of truth.

You got a problem with that? Just too bad.

We can delude ourselves into the belief that we can buy and sell these men. We cannot. They will not respond to negotiation, concilliatory gestures, appeasement, gifts of gold and treasure, or the trinkets that we crave. Concessions, disengagement, appeals to humanity and mercy, and withdrawl from confrontation only serve to feed their frenzy for jihad and murder.

Their demands are simple: restore the Caliphate, live under Sharia, and convert to Islam under the pain of death. Death to all Jews. Eradicate Western influence. Nothing less.

We’re on a collision course with these men, and we have a date with destiny. We will win, they will lose. But how long will it take before our innocence is shattered once and for all?

They were already being investigated and I think it was Richard Meyers who talked to CBS because he was already aware of the investigation, and the investigation was going on and charges were filed before CBS released the show. In fact, CBS agreed with Meyers not to release the segment, for like a week or a month, and CBS should not have done that if they believed nobody was going to get charged.

Too many people lie about Abu Ghraib, because it is a propaganda victory extraordinaire for the those who want to see Iraq fail. You can combat the gleeful misinformation with truth, but you could also ignore it and circumvent it.

Jan. 13: Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu Ghraib, leaves a disc with photographs of prisoner abuse on the bed of a military investigator.

April 28: CBS airs the photos, setting off an international outcry. Bush, Rumsfeld and Meyers say this is the first time they have seen any of the photographs.

Compare and contrast the reality with what people think it is

Do you think that even the lowest of the perpetrators at AbuGhraib would have appeared before a military Court had someone not gotten careless with where they posted that video?

Then ask yourself why people who uphold Abu Ghraib as their talisman and prophet, have no little real curiosity over the truth. They believe what they want to believe. End of Story.

Probligo is wrong, but he is only one member of the populist party who believe in propaganda and fervent emotional attacks rather than cold and hard facts.

This isn’t an argument about interpretation of facts,