Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

When does "police action" not fail to completely prevent another occurrence in the future?  What does Iraq have to do with that, anyway?  I see no indication that we are now safer thanks to our adventure in Iraq.  Many more are now radicalized, if anything.

Iraq was the field chosen to play this game on.

Gee, and here I though it was Afghanistan - instead of Saudi Arabia, where it should have been played. You want a war of cultures, invade SA and Mecca.

What's going on now is, in my opinion, much more than 1 single thing and objective. To try and think of it in terms of simply fighting terrorism is shortsighted. That's part of it but there are other birds they are attempting to kill with this stone.
Ribby makes damn good points related to this subject.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

When does "police action" not fail to completely prevent another occurrence in the future?  What does Iraq have to do with that, anyway?  I see no indication that we are now safer thanks to our adventure in Iraq.  Many more are now radicalized, if anything.

Iraq was the field chosen to play this game on.

What game? The game of going after people not responsible for 9/11? The game of creating a dangerous power vacuum in the heart of the Mideast? Or maybe the game of providing America's worst enemy with the best recruiting tool it could ever hope for?

Exactly. If anything AQ and the general Islamist movement is stronger than before 9/11 and in large part because Bush invading Iraq is an incredibly powerful recruiting tool for them. Bush is the best thing that ever happened to AQ, the Taliban and other radicals. He played right into their hands, handed them a propaganda coup and weakened the USA militarily in the process. He could hardly have helped them more if he had done so deliberately.
Talk about your classic "useful idiot" in the Leninist way.
I agree with Kev that there is a war going on, a clash of cultures as it were and I wish Bush would do something about that.
But everything he has done has only served to exacerbate the situation and made our enemies stronger while distancing us from our allies.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

user wrote:

9/11 was an excuse. They could have easily treated it with a police action. Instead, they started jumping up and down screaming that we were ATTACKED and that we were at war.

They needlessly elevated a motley group of criminals to the status of an army, ensuring that many more would flock to their cause.

We were attacked.
Several times.
Police action failed to prevent the next attack every time.
This isn't and has never been a police problem.
This is a political problem and a war of cultures.

Police action failed every time ?  Gee, was there any indication (say, memos, or counter-terrorist individuals named Clarke) that AQ was planning attacks on America ?

Ah! its so clear now... looking back on it.

Cheney on Invading Iraq - 9/14/1992
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0

Cheney in 1994 on Iraq
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Last edited by Proost (2007-11-13 11:29 am)

menglish wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Police action failed every time ?  Gee, was there any indication (say, memos, or counter-terrorist individuals named Clarke) that AQ was planning attacks on America ?

Ah! its so clear now... looking back on it.

Well, it is very clear that those memos and findings were ignored.

Just because those in charge of the police action were/are dolts, doesn't mean that a threat isn't a police problem.  it just means the people in charge are dolts.

Sorry, but police actions to stop attacks are going to be insanely hard no matter who is running the show.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

user wrote:

9/11 was an excuse. They could have easily treated it with a police action. Instead, they started jumping up and down screaming that we were ATTACKED and that we were at war.

They needlessly elevated a motley group of criminals to the status of an army, ensuring that many more would flock to their cause.

We were attacked.
Several times.
Police action failed to prevent the next attack every time.
This isn't and has never been a police problem.
This is a political problem and a war of cultures.

Police action failed every time ?  Gee, was there any indication (say, memos, or counter-terrorist individuals named Clarke) that AQ was planning attacks on America ?

The political problem of the United States supporting dictators of primarily Muslim countries ?  And the people of those countries aren't so keen on it ?

Yes because it fails to address the political problem that is the root. Each attack was progressively worse than the last.
The same as police don't stop poor people from stealing and you don't stop the next poor person from stealing by locking up the last one.

Law enforcement is not a terrorism solution.

Farmerkev wrote:

menglish wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Ah! its so clear now... looking back on it.

Well, it is very clear that those memos and findings were ignored.

Just because those in charge of the police action were/are dolts, doesn't mean that a threat isn't a police problem.  it just means the people in charge are dolts.

Do you have any idea the millions of ways an attack can take place?
The thousands of places it could happen?

Clearly millions is an exaggeration, but I agree, the notion of having the police catch and prevent every terrorist attack that could possibly be committed is silly, no one has the man power, and it's just not cost effective to employ the manpower that would be necessary to get those last few percentages anyway.

But what are you suggesting then?  You say it's a cultural and political problem.  I agree, we have to deal this problem.  How are you suggesting we deal with it? Certainly you're not endorsing the current strategy? The one where we pour jet fuel on the cultural/political flames.

Saying terorism isn't a police problem does not then automatically mean I think it's a military problem nor that the war in Iraq was the brightest move.
I don't think there is a simple blanket course of action.
One choice would be total noninvolvement in their affairs.
Another would be more multipronged, increasing the economic opportunities for the people and their education should be the main thrust. You can't rule out military actions either but they have to be more targeted. I simply loath sanctions but I wouldn't call those that think they are useful totally wrong.
The culture, poverty and gov't/social structures are the root problems.
That's what we have to change.

First, I agree with your notion that there are lots of things to try in combating terrorism.

Farmerkev wrote:

You can't rule out military actions either but they have to be more targeted.

Thinking through this, I'm trying to imagine what targeted military action looks like.  Is this where we have a surgical strike and only kill the bad guys?  Would this be very similar to where we have a police force and only arrest the bad guys?  What is the fundamental difference here?  Is it that with a military action we have to violate the sovereignty of the nation where the bad guys are?  Or is it that we have to be a little less certain who the bad guys are and who we will be killing?

I'm confused how the difficulties of police action become more tractable when we turn it into a military action.

Halting and anticipating terrorist attacks requires intensive, internationally cooperative policework. Not the kind of stuff that'll get the right wing terribly excited, I'm afraid.

Reducing terrorism requires understanding its causes and correcting them. Again, not an especially visually rewarding activity; no instant gratification.

I don't see a place for a manoeuvre military in the realm of anti terrorism. There is a place for military expertise, but it's limited.

http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html

VLADIMIR:
    One daren't even laugh any more.
    ESTRAGON:
    Dreadful privation.
    VLADIMIR:
    Merely smile. (He smiles suddenly from ear to ear, keeps smiling, ceases as suddenly.) It's not the same thing. Nothing to be done. (Pause.) Gogo.
    ESTRAGON:
    (irritably). What is it?
    VLADIMIR:
    Did you ever read the Bible?