September 11
Moon
Join Date: 2002-11-16 Member: 8873Members
Join Date: 2002-11-16 Member: 8873Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Planes as weapons - a new idea ?</div> It appears one "Samuel Byck" had the idea of hijacking a commercial airliner and flying it into the White House to assassinate Nixon. This was of course many years ago.
In world war II Japanese Kamikaze (Divine Wind) pilots attempted to sink ships by flying into them.
Is it reasonable then to say "who would have ever thought of that !!?". I think not... especially not for those charged with security.
Could the attacks have been prevented ? Is it fair to blame someone in particular ? Thoughts ?
In world war II Japanese Kamikaze (Divine Wind) pilots attempted to sink ships by flying into them.
Is it reasonable then to say "who would have ever thought of that !!?". I think not... especially not for those charged with security.
Could the attacks have been prevented ? Is it fair to blame someone in particular ? Thoughts ?
Comments
It has been pointed out in the investigations that there were signs (static they call it) that a plan for attack of some kind involving coordinated hijackings was around for several months before hand. The problem wasn't that they didn't know about the problem was that the FBI was severly underfunded and restricted by laws that were in place at the time. Some of the information they couldn't act on because it was illegal, other actions required a lot more time and personel they didn't have.
As far as who is to blame for it, I would have to say those that cut funding to the FBI and our military. Clinton was responsible for several of these cuts, Rumsfeld had been decreasing pentagon staffing for years, so who to blame is kind of hard to know.
And yes, the attacks could be prevented with air-marshalls.
The fact is that the United States maintained, and still does maintain, the most powerful military force in the world 2 years ago and today. Terrorism by it's very nature cannot be fought in conventional ways: it requires unconventional stratagies to defeat it. Small scale surgical strikes, raids by special forces troops and above all intelligence. Giving more money to the military won't stop Joe the Terrorist from driving his pickup truck over the Mexican border with a nuke in the trunk, nor will it stop Bob the Terrorist from hijacking an airliner. If the US government had known that the 4 incomming flights were hijacked and had a plan to destroy landmarks, they could have blasted them out of the sky easily with the weapons the military possessed 2 years ago. There's no reason why S-11 should have resulted in more military spending.
More intelligence is needed, so I think more money to the CIA-FBI is good. These are the people who can best counter terrorism. Militaries arn't designed for counter-terrorist operations: they are designed to counter other military forces.
Now as to who's fault it was. Everyone of course points at the previous administration. Yet it is quite possible that there was no-one to blame. All previous airline hijackings had involved the ransom of the passengers, not the use of airliners as massive cruise missiles. Thus, even if the US government had been 99% sure that the aircraft had been hijacked and were being piloted to their destruction it would still have bauked at shooting them down, because a) this hadn't been done before and b) They would then have the blood of hundreds of civilians on their hands and they would have to be damn sure their intelligence was correct.
Suicidal attacks such as S-11 are the hardest things to stop, because all the deterrance in the world won't deter an enemy who does not fear death. Thus the US military, which previously had provided a very large deterrance to external attack, cannot stop military attacks. Intelligance however is also a tricky buisiness. You can't just throw money at a case and it miraculously is solved. An intelligance agency with the fiscal resources of the entire world still won't be able to infiltrate a terrorist cell that is comprised of brothers bent on a "holy" cause to destroy themselves and others. What intellegance agencies can do is try and determine where such a cell is, or when it will strike, so a nation can either hit the terrorists first or be ready for them. But even then, sometimes a group will cover its tracks too well. When the dust settles, often no-one is to blame.
Now as for being restricted by laws. Well here we have a very strange situation, where American citizens have been willing to give up some of their rights to better "prevent" terrorism. Usually Americans scream bloody murder about any of their rights being trampled on, but in one strike here they were willing, even happy, to give some up. Now if thats the price you want to pay to feel a little safer then go ahead, just remember that once a precedent has been set it becomes easier to do it again. You might end up with a bill being passed that does not allow citizens to speak out in favour of terrorist organisations, and before you know it, freedom of speech is gone. So be warned.
Now we don't know if what the US is doing right now is working. As long as there is not another attack, it does work. But if an LNG tanker sails into New York harbour tommorow and levels Manhatten Island then what next? More military spending, despite the US budget being 450 BILLION dollars in deficit? More intelligance money despite their inability to know this was coming? More civil rights gone? Another war somewhere? Or maybe just the simple realisation that if a group of people is determined enough, they will breach your defenses, and you can't stop it. The best you can do is minimise the damage when it happens and try to understand why these people hate your country so much. People arn't born terrorists. They become them. Maybe the citizens of the US should look at the continual attacks on US soldiers in Iraq to learn exactly how terrorists are created.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone is looking forward to a decent payroll <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone is looking forward to a decent payroll <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh , how mean and nasty...
Btw Spooge , your post is still violating rule #3 , as it only involves emotion.
Replacing the gorge model with Kyle's "cute gorge" wouldn't prevent me from yelling at a noob placing OCs on nodes... I will refrain from reacting frankly here though , as I tend to be banned from forums every 11/9...
Now, personally, I've never been interested in the scapegoating campaign each and everyone started after the WTCs dust had settled. The fact of the matter is that pretty much nobody had expected it, in fact, the political agendas of the fifteen years before 9/11 were almost entirely aimed on the prevention of what we nowadays call 'cyberterrorism': Attacks that're augmented by every technological help affordable. Al-Quaedas 'classical' terrorism of conspirative groups, cells that know each other for decades, and face-to-face meetings just hit them in the blind side. Thus, trying to assign the blame to anyone specific is useless - the whole intelligence was simply set up to be looking in the wrong direction. I can't blame them for doing their job.
What I can assign blame for is that this policy is being carried on: Instead of using their (already substantional) fundings to use tried and true measures against classical terrorism, the intelligences keep bugging phones and E-Mail accounts, when it should've become apparent by now that this is not the way 'modern' terrorism works.
The majority of Ryo-Ohki's post centered around the level of funding to the U.S. military. The picture I posted represents a number of reasons why I, as a U.S. Federal Taxpayer, have thousands of dollars removed from my paycheck to fund the U.S. Armed Forces:
<ul>
<li>The individual in the picture is selflessly providing a service to U.S. citizens and needs to be reimbursed with a paycheck. That paycheck has been dragged through the mud over the last 15 years resulting in, among other domestic issues, an increase of early retirements of high level officers.
<li>This soldier, and possibly the others in the photo most likely have immediate families waiting for them at home. While these soldiers are away one of the homestead providers is not providing care for the familiy. It is the duty of each taxpaying citizen to support their families.
<li>The weapons used by the soldiers in this picture must be the best equipment taxpayers can provide.
<li>These soldiers need vehicles and support equipment capable of reaching remote locations anywhere in the world.
<li>The individual focussed on in the photo is administering care to an innocent civilian. This care requires not only the food and supplies that the soldiers are using but also enough food and medical supplies for as many locals as they can possibly reach.
</ul>
The assumption of the prior post represents a typical representation of military funding as an ocean full of cash headed straight for the munition manufacturers. My initial difficulty revolved around how to describe that viewpoint without pouring any combustible fluids. "Narrow" is the adjective I've decided on.
All this might seem like a Topic Hijack but there is a link: The U.S. military has been established financially to a point where it can dive head first into the sources of the terrorist threats instead of waiting for the terrorists to show up at their front door. The overall intent is to combat the core of the cancer--removing the capabilities of terrorists as opposed to past attempts to treat the symptoms. As for blaming the attacks on the previous administration; not only is it unfair, it's a waste of time. There is, however, a clear path of beaurocratic roadblocks and military reductions which created an atmoshphere of confusion and self-doubt that can be placed squarely on the previous administration.
If people in a military system are receiving low pay, but the military budget consumes a massive quota of a nations' budget, then the military is too large: it must be downsized if pay rates are to rise. The US military budget prior to S-11 was already in the multi-hundreds of billions region, which means there were plenty of funds there but the military was too large. As the US has learned, modern military systems are best filled with motivated, highly trained soldiers each of whom represents a considerable investment. Quality over quantity has become the new model for the modern military. Now if quantity reaches a level where quality is starting to suffer, quantity should be held back.
Thus the soldier pictured could have, and should have, recieved a handsome salary under the budget of 1999 - 2000, but there were too many other servicemen and women requesting the same. Governments should scale their militaries to match the level of threat posed to a nation, and this is exactly what the US government was doing: with the collapse of the former USSR and the lack of any other dominant superpower the US was and still is unchallanged on the world military stage. Note again, this was true prior to S-11. When the pre S-11 levels of military spending were sufficient to ensure that the US not only was unchallanged militarily but was <i>increasing</i> it's military advantage over it's potential foes then there was no need for an increase in military spending.
You say that soldier should have state-of-the-art weaponry. He had that before S-11 as well. He needs transport? He had the best there is. He provides food and medical care to civilians? The US had no problem delivering aid prior to S-11.
Now answer me why S-11 required the US to start funding a ballistic missile sheild? Such a defense secures against a very conventional threat, whereas the terrorists clearly showed that they were using very unconventional methods of attack. Terrorists getting hold of an ICBM, an actual space vehicle, is simply impossible. Regardless of the state of Russia currently, the most that could happen is a warhead being smugglled out. Nations tend to guard ICBMs rather well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Now say said warhead is smuggled out and used against the US, how is a missile sheild going to help?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The U.S. military has been established financially to a point where it can dive head first into the sources of the terrorist threats instead of waiting for the terrorists to show up at their front door. The overall intent is to combat the core of the cancer--removing the capabilities of terrorists as opposed to past attempts to treat the symptoms.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, the US military had this capacity prior to S-11. Directly after the attacks came the Afghani War which proves beyond doubt that the US military was more than capable of attacking into the heart of a terrorist operation. No increase in funding was required to achieve such aims.
Secondly, the "sources" of terrorist threats are usually not military targets. They tend to be small, secretive cells of a few dedicated men or women. Organisations operate in the shadows, funneling money through seemingly legitimate buisnesses and aquiring arms from the black market. Training camps can be visable targets but they can also be enclosed. Training centers can be normal looking buildings in the middle of bustling cities. Militaries are not good at taking on such targets: the line between civilian and combatant is blurred and viable targets are not clear. No increase of military funding is going to change this.
Thirdly, re: treating the core of the cancer. You simply cannot remove the capabilities of terrorists with military force. Look what the terrorists used in S-11: box cutters. You can't stop a terrorist from getting a box cutter. And how do you stop the training he receieves to fly an airliner with military force? You can't. How do you stop him boarding an airliner with military force? You can't. The leadership whom he or she answers to is shadowy and secrative and their capabilities are limited only by what they can turn into weapons. The capabilities of a terrorist organisation are it's capacity to blend in, to use cultural and religious differances to gain support, to utilise fanatisism and above all stay hidden. Such capabilities are neither military targets or able to be neutralised with military force: in fact the direct use of military force against such groups often leads directly to an increase in support for the group, due to their ability to utilise cultural and religious divisions.
Now intelligance operations can track down terrorist groups, learn their plans and centers of operation, and then send in small covert teams to surgically remove terrorist threats. This is how counter-terrorism works: not by mass invasions that simply cause more people to flock to a cause and the terrorists present in a country to flee elsewhere, but with counter-intelligance, infiltration and small scale strikes.
In conclusion, ask yourself the following. Why, despite the US military budget skyrocketing since September 11, has your military been unable to find Osama Bin Laden or eliminate Al Quaeda as an effective terrorist force?
If people in a military system are receiving low pay, but the military budget consumes a massive quota of a nations' budget, then the military is too large: it must be downsized if pay rates are to rise. The US military budget prior to S-11 was already in the multi-hundreds of billions region, which means there were plenty of funds there but the military was too large. As the US has learned, modern military systems are best filled with motivated, highly trained soldiers each of whom represents a considerable investment. Quality over quantity has become the new model for the modern military. Now if quantity reaches a level where quality is starting to suffer, quantity should be held back.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does that logic work? Oversized military cannot provide the sort of defenses? Wha? I am *completely* confused about that one. The current administration's strategy and policy is that the best defense is a good offense, and the fact that the number of active military troops had already been cut during the previous administration doesn't really help your argument in any way. Perhaps you are saying that the current military isn't trained to prevent terrorist cells from blowing things up? You are correct; that is what the intelligence agencies are for. The military's current job is to make sure that the terrorists aren't welcome anywhere (that may be an impossible task, but it's what they're supposed to do).
FYI, the department of defense has a budget of around 3% of the country's GDP (I believe that was the figure, I heard it on NPR some time ago). That compares with these numbers: <a href='http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_45/b3756038.htm' target='_blank'>linkeh</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now if quantity reaches a level where quality is starting to suffer, quantity should be held back. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The military is much smaller than it used to be. In fact, the size of the active military is actually probably too small to handle the policing of an entire state like Iraq; technological advances won't allow 1 soldier to cover the area that 3 soldiers can.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus the soldier pictured could have, and should have, recieved a handsome salary under the budget of 1999 - 2000, but there were too many other servicemen and women requesting the same. Governments should scale their militaries to match the level of threat posed to a nation, and this is exactly what the US government was doing: with the collapse of the former USSR and the lack of any other dominant superpower the US was and still is unchallanged on the world military stage. Note again, this was true prior to S-11. When the pre S-11 levels of military spending were sufficient to ensure that the US not only was unchallanged militarily but was <i>increasing</i> it's military advantage over it's potential foes then there was no need for an increase in military spending.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you saying this with any sort of knowledge of U.S. military strength, or just going off of general impressions? You fail to recognize the change in priorities of the military; just because there is no single entity that can pose a threat to the U.S. military does *not* mean that the size and funding of the military should be reduced. In fact, the axis of threat for the United States has not only changed, but instead widened considerably - instead of facing a single threat, now there are many smaller, distributed threats. Past experience has shown that special ops forces can only do so much; they cannot hold ground or defend a position. The military has not been relegated to a state of uselessness because of the nature of the new threat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You say that soldier should have state-of-the-art weaponry. He had that before S-11 as well. He needs transport? He had the best there is. He provides food and medical care to civilians? The US had no problem delivering aid prior to S-11.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's some fallacious logic in this argument, and that leads to embarrassments like Bill Gates' "640k should be enough for anyone."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now answer me why S-11 required the US to start funding a ballistic missile sheild? Such a defense secures against a very conventional threat, whereas the terrorists clearly showed that they were using very unconventional methods of attack. Terrorists getting hold of an ICBM, an actual space vehicle, is simply impossible. Regardless of the state of Russia currently, the most that could happen is a warhead being smugglled out. Nations tend to guard ICBMs rather well <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Now say said warhead is smuggled out and used against the US, how is a missile sheild going to help?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By such logic, perhaps we should post guards at all ballistic missile silos in the world to prevent terrorists from breaking in and launching one. While I agree that a missile shield would be too expensive and unreliable under current technological conditions, I believe that it is a fairly logical decision. A suitcase bomb as you might be speaking of can't be stopped by a missile shield, true, but that's for the intelligence agencies once again to handle. What *can* be stopped by a missile shield is a nuke that may have a payload that will wipe out 50 city blocks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Firstly, the US military had this capacity prior to S-11. Directly after the attacks came the Afghani War which proves beyond doubt that the US military was more than capable of attacking into the heart of a terrorist operation. No increase in funding was required to achieve such aims.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US military is looking at an indefinite campaign across an enormous theater of operations. I'm pretty sure that requires an increase in funding from peacetime.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, the "sources" of terrorist threats are usually not military targets. They tend to be small, secretive cells of a few dedicated men or women. Organisations operate in the shadows, funneling money through seemingly legitimate buisnesses and aquiring arms from the black market. Training camps can be visable targets but they can also be enclosed. Training centers can be normal looking buildings in the middle of bustling cities. Militaries are not good at taking on such targets: the line between civilian and combatant is blurred and viable targets are not clear. No increase of military funding is going to change this.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but when you consider the fact that most countries have their own dedicated intelligence agencies with direct or indirect knowledge of or even relationships with terrorist cells, a bigger stick sure does a lot of intimidation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thirdly, re: treating the core of the cancer. You simply cannot remove the capabilities of terrorists with military force. Look what the terrorists used in S-11: box cutters. You can't stop a terrorist from getting a box cutter. And how do you stop the training he receieves to fly an airliner with military force? You can't. How do you stop him boarding an airliner with military force? You can't. The leadership whom he or she answers to is shadowy and secrative and their capabilities are limited only by what they can turn into weapons. The capabilities of a terrorist organisation are it's capacity to blend in, to use cultural and religious differances to gain support, to utilise fanatisism and above all stay hidden. Such capabilities are neither military targets or able to be neutralised with military force: in fact the direct use of military force against such groups often leads directly to an increase in support for the group, due to their ability to utilise cultural and religious divisions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a red herring; the military's mission is not to stop people with box-cutters from getting on planes. The military is not the only aspect of the US response to terrorism; it plays a very specific and confined role which may or may not overlap with the other responses.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now intelligance operations can track down terrorist groups, learn their plans and centers of operation, and then send in small covert teams to surgically remove terrorist threats. This is how counter-terrorism works: not by mass invasions that simply cause more people to flock to a cause and the terrorists present in a country to flee elsewhere, but with counter-intelligance, infiltration and small scale strikes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Intelligence operations don't make other governments do more to stop terrorism; the best military in the world will probably do that better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In conclusion, ask yourself the following. Why, despite the US military budget skyrocketing since September 11, has your military been unable to find Osama Bin Laden or eliminate Al Quaeda as an effective terrorist force?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps because the intelligence agencies' budgets aren't related at all to the military budget.
Yes, it may have been prevented, but none the less, the FBI and other intelligence agencies get THOUSANDS of these kinds of threats every day. How are they to sort through all of them? I don't think its fair to blame them. I think the main problem lay in the under staffing of such agencys.
As for Ryo's post about America's military...
His assesment that a modern military is useless in fighting terrorism is correct, assuming that we fight 'terrorists' who hide out in countries, strike at random, and never are large enough to justify a military response prior to. However, the US also needs to destroy the roots of terrorism, which means elminating terror funding regimes, and destroying the archaic culture which grounds terrorism (Fundamental Islam, in this case). Such actions are not done easily, and as the left is quick to point out, our troops are having a heck of a time in Iraq (not true, but for the sake of argument...). Iraq is just showing we need a MORE powerful military is we use the left's arguments.
Woah slow down there <span style='color:white'>Not funny.</span>. You can't go applying your own culutral standards upon another culture or religion. Niether can you use it as a justification for virtual genocide, which is what you seem to be implying. Fundamentalism exists in virtually every religion on the planet. Terrorism currently does draw support from fundamentalist islamic groups, but also from moderate and mainstream Islamic and non-Islamic groups. One of the things that terrorist groups like Al-Quaeda are very good at is warping religious ideas to their own purposes. Fundametialist Islam itself is not the root cause of terrorism, but Al Quaeda and other groups do gain membership from it's followers. Al Quaeda though gains followers from all of Islam, and to suggest a war against all of Islam is insane to say the least.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Such actions are not done easily, and as the left is quick to point out, our troops are having a heck of a time in Iraq (not true, but for the sake of argument...). Iraq is just showing we need a MORE powerful military is we use the left's arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The left points out that US soldiers are being killed, but we, or at least I, do not argue with the fact that the Iraq conflict was a walkover for the US. The attacks that are on-going are not going to throw the US out or defeat the US military. If any left wingers are saying that then they have no concept of modern military systems. Iraq shows that the US military is more than large enough, technologically advanced and capable to take on it's foes. The ease at which the US was able to crush the Iraq army demonstrates that clearly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How does that logic work? Oversized military cannot provide the sort of defenses? Wha? I am *completely* confused about that one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, the two points of an oversized military and defense against terrorism are not as such connected. I was refering to my beleif that military systems are not designed to counter terrorism, and that as such funding levels for the US military should not have risen in the post S-11 budgets. I was also pointing out that the problem with low wages was not lack of funds, but too many servicemen and women.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The military is much smaller than it used to be. In fact, the size of the active military is actually probably too small to handle the policing of an entire state like Iraq;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but a military isn't there to police regions. The US military isn't designed with the idea of police work: at most it's designed to hold an area until government, administration and local police services can be restored. Occupation duty should be as temporary as possible.
Of course, if the US is going to expand their wars further and further then their military is going to grow to meet this demand. I never denied that militaries do not grow, I merely stated that they should be as large as is required. In the post-Cold war world the US didn't need vast divisions of tanks and squadrens of aircraft. If the US decides that they are going to take on Iran and North Korea as well as maintaining occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan then their military will have to grow.
However, I do not believe that those wars are doing anything to stop terrorism; indeed they would seem to be fueling it. Hence I maintain my belief that the US military should not have grown larger, and that instead it should use it's forces in small, surgical strikes that are guided by accurate information. Using the US military to go after Al Quaeda is like using a sledgehammer to destroy a cockroach: the hammer is big and powerful, but your target is small and constantly moving and hiding. It's no wonder that Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden havn't been destroyed when the methods the US is using are the wrong ones to use. Invade a country and terrorist groups, if they ever were there, will just move away, hidden amongst refugees or travellers. Worse still, the invasion gives them fresh support from formally moderate groups who now see their lands being occupied. Terrrorists can always set themselves up in new places, with or without the consent of the country they are in.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->just because there is no single entity that can pose a threat to the U.S. military does *not* mean that the size and funding of the military should be reduced. In fact, the axis of threat for the United States has not only changed, but instead widened considerably - instead of facing a single threat, now there are many smaller, distributed threats.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst the threat has changed, it is now far smaller and of a much differant nature. The percieved threat posed by the former USSR was of a very much militaristic nature: a large scale army and air force, backed up by nuclear power, which had the capacity, if not the inclination, to invade Western Europe. The US military grew and modelled it's army to meet this threat, and the US army does very well in the purpose it was designed for: taking on other militaries. The new threats posed are from enemies that do not use military force at all, instead utilising otherwise harmless objects such as airliners as weapons. In combatting an enemy that is spread out, hidden, ill-defined and secreative the US military fares poorly, and it's not surprising because it wasn't designed to defeat such a foe. Also, the threat posed by these new enemies is one of suprise attacks that seek to terrify and harm as many civilians as possible. These terrorists to not seek to invade or conquor the US: they seek to wound and humiliate it. In preventing possible invasions or undertaking them itself the US military performs superbly, but it cannot provide the same defense against the threats posed by terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Past experience has shown that special ops forces can only do so much; they cannot hold ground or defend a position. The military has not been relegated to a state of uselessness because of the nature of the new threat.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In combatting terrorism the US military is in a state of uselessness because it is not being utilised correctly. You're right, special ops forces can't hold ground or defend positions, but this is exactly the kind of thing the US military shouldn't be trying to do when it is combatting terrorism. Terrorists don't hold territory and they're not good at defending themselves, they would much rather flee than fight. Thus it's pointless to occupy a territory and say "The terrorists are gone" because they will simply move on, and they have lost nothing. It's pointless to post soldiers all over said territory and say "We will defend this position against terrorists" because the terrorists do not seek to specifically hurt your military. The way the US military is being used currently is the way it was deisgned to be used, but unfortunatly that's not what's needed. The US military can play a vital role in combatting terrorism, using it's special ops forces and intelligance gathering services to locate destory terrorist cells in small scale raids. As long as the US military continues to be used in the same way as it is now, it will be virtually useless in combatting terrorism, but if it changes it's tactics it could be a very powerful tool indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There's some fallacious logic in this argument, and that leads to embarrassments like Bill Gates' "640k should be enough for anyone."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the entire world is using 640k except you who have 1280k, then you are obviously in front correct? When the tools you have are already a leap ahead of the tools everyone else is using, is there that great a need to expand that gap?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By such logic, perhaps we should post guards at all ballistic missile silos in the world to prevent terrorists from breaking in and launching one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err, there ARE guards at every ballistic missile silo around the world. Plus the problems of getting the codes, fueling them, launching them, programming them... Countries don't build a multi-billion dollar space vehicle tipped with nuclear warheads and then leave leave it out in the middle of a feild. They lock them up very well and protect them with their most reliable troops. Terrorists simply arn't going to get an ICBM because it would be equivilant to a terrorist cell breaking into the Kennedy Space Center and stealing a shuttle. Just not going to happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US military is looking at an indefinite campaign across an enormous theater of operations. I'm pretty sure that requires an increase in funding from peacetime.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No increase in funding was required to defeat the Afghani military, and no new technology was required. But the US decided to stay and occupy the country, so of course they needed extra money and more soldiers. I'm not disputing that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, but when you consider the fact that most countries have their own dedicated intelligence agencies with direct or indirect knowledge of or even relationships with terrorist cells, a bigger stick sure does a lot of intimidation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it doesn't. If you want the world to help you find terrorists then you must work with them, not threaten to flatten their cities. The world as a whole doesn't support terrorism, and nations arn't keen on it because they can never be sure if they are at risk or not. Look at Indonesia and Saudia Arabia: two countries where Islamic terrorist groups gain many members, yet both have been hit by terrorist attacks. Terrorist groups also are not deterred by military might, hence the threat of the "stick" does not bother them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a red herring; the military's mission is not to stop people with box-cutters from getting on planes. The military is not the only aspect of the US response to terrorism; it plays a very specific and confined role which may or may not overlap with the other responses.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No the military SHOULD be playing a very specific and confined role. Currently, it's been the US's main force in combatting terrorism, and it's not doing a good job of it. Now if it was playing a very specific and confined role instead of invading and occupying countries then it would be a step in the right direction.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Intelligence operations don't make other governments do more to stop terrorism; the best military in the world will probably do that better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I've said, other governments usually want to get rid of terrorism as well. Foreign nations to NOT react well to threats such as "Help us or we bomb you". Thats exactly the kind of threat that makes nations unwilling to help out. Our Prime Minister over here in Australia tried that, telling all our neighbouring countries that if we located a terrorist cell in any of these countries we would undertake pre-emptive strikes. The response was not pleasent, there was a virtual meltdown in regional relations. Now that the Australian and Indonesian intelligance services are working more closely however, greater strides have been made tracking down South East Asian terrorist groups, including the arrest of the Bali bombers and key Islamic Jihad leaders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps because the intelligence agencies' budgets aren't related at all to the military budget. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, not quite following you there. If you're advocating more money for intelligance operations, I'm with you. If you're suggesting that the reason the US military can't destory Al Quaeda is because they don't have adequate intel, then I partially agree.
Ok, the two points of an oversized military and defense against terrorism are not as such connected. I was refering to my beleif that military systems are not designed to counter terrorism, and that as such funding levels for the US military should not have risen in the post S-11 budgets. I was also pointing out that the problem with low wages was not lack of funds, but too many servicemen and women.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I'm quite sure that servicemen/women would not recieve a pay raise if the number of enlisted went down.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->True, but a military isn't there to police regions. The US military isn't designed with the idea of police work: at most it's designed to hold an area until government, administration and local police services can be restored. Occupation duty should be as temporary as possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and past experience has shown that the occupation force needs to keep order for a few years before a civil government is ready to take over. The US military is already training Iraqi civilians to be police, but training doesn't occur overnight. In the meantime, someone needs to do it, and many UN members don't seem particularly eager to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, I do not believe that those wars are doing anything to stop terrorism; indeed they would seem to be fueling it. Hence I maintain my belief that the US military should not have grown larger, and that instead it should use it's forces in small, surgical strikes that are guided by accurate information. Using the US military to go after Al Quaeda is like using a sledgehammer to destroy a cockroach: the hammer is big and powerful, but your target is small and constantly moving and hiding. It's no wonder that Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden havn't been destroyed when the methods the US is using are the wrong ones to use. Invade a country and terrorist groups, if they ever were there, will just move away, hidden amongst refugees or travellers. Worse still, the invasion gives them fresh support from formally moderate groups who now see their lands being occupied. Terrrorists can always set themselves up in new places, with or without the consent of the country they are in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good points, but I think one of the other goals of using the US military in both Iraq and Afghanistan (never really stated of course, but always in the subtext) was to flush out terrorists from countries known to abet them, and to send a message to all such countries that harboring terrorists will not be tolerated. This seemed to work pretty well with Syria after the Iraqi war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The new threats posed are from enemies that do not use military force at all, instead utilising otherwise harmless objects such as airliners as weapons. In combatting an enemy that is spread out, hidden, ill-defined and secreative the US military fares poorly, and it's not surprising because it wasn't designed to defeat such a foe. Also, the threat posed by these new enemies is one of suprise attacks that seek to terrify and harm as many civilians as possible. These terrorists to not seek to invade or conquor the US: they seek to wound and humiliate it. In preventing possible invasions or undertaking them itself the US military performs superbly, but it cannot provide the same defense against the threats posed by terrorists.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said earlier, it is not the job of the military to provide defense against these threats. Whether you had the largest military in the world or the smallest makes no difference in preventing terrorism (see Indonesia and Israel). Therefore what you are saying is "since more funding for the military isn't directly contributing to fighting terrorism, it's useless and should go to other areas". I partially agree with this, but at the same time increasing funding isn't just a sign that the administration is applying a normative response; it is also a symbolic act.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In combatting terrorism the US military is in a state of uselessness because it is not being utilised correctly. You're right, special ops forces can't hold ground or defend positions, but this is exactly the kind of thing the US military shouldn't be trying to do when it is combatting terrorism. Terrorists don't hold territory and they're not good at defending themselves, they would much rather flee than fight. Thus it's pointless to occupy a territory and say "The terrorists are gone" because they will simply move on, and they have lost nothing. It's pointless to post soldiers all over said territory and say "We will defend this position against terrorists" because the terrorists do not seek to specifically hurt your military. The way the US military is being used currently is the way it was deisgned to be used, but unfortunatly that's not what's needed. The US military can play a vital role in combatting terrorism, using it's special ops forces and intelligance gathering services to locate destory terrorist cells in small scale raids. As long as the US military continues to be used in the same way as it is now, it will be virtually useless in combatting terrorism, but if it changes it's tactics it could be a very powerful tool indeed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But as stated previously, the point of the military is not to kill terrorists; it's only a side-job if you will. You're mistaking direct persecution of terrorists with indirect, and both are very important (at least I think so).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the entire world is using 640k except you who have 1280k, then you are obviously in front correct? When the tools you have are already a leap ahead of the tools everyone else is using, is there that great a need to expand that gap?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To use another analogy, say you have a sword, and the guy you're fighting has a knife. Are you not going to put on armor because "you have a sword, and it ought to be good enough to kill the knife-wielder"? To put it bluntly, being more advanced and powerful than other militaries does not make the US military godlike in any sense. Therefore, anything that helps reduce the body count on our side is good.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Err, there ARE guards at every ballistic missile silo around the world. Plus the problems of getting the codes, fueling them, launching them, programming them... Countries don't build a multi-billion dollar space vehicle tipped with nuclear warheads and then leave leave it out in the middle of a feild. They lock them up very well and protect them with their most reliable troops. Terrorists simply arn't going to get an ICBM because it would be equivilant to a terrorist cell breaking into the Kennedy Space Center and stealing a shuttle. Just not going to happen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That wasn't the point. There are guards, but how are we sure of their reliability? We can listen to the Russians for example, who will tell you that their missile silos are well guarded, but are they really? So really we would have to post our *own* guards at every missile silo in the world. And even then it would be nice to have a backup to fall on in case something does go wrong. Just because it's unlikely that terrorists get an ICBM doesn't mean it won't happen. I already said my opinion was that it was too expensive at the current time, but it still is a logical thing to build.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
No it doesn't. If you want the world to help you find terrorists then you must work with them, not threaten to flatten their cities. The world as a whole doesn't support terrorism, and nations arn't keen on it because they can never be sure if they are at risk or not. Look at Indonesia and Saudia Arabia: two countries where Islamic terrorist groups gain many members, yet both have been hit by terrorist attacks. Terrorist groups also are not deterred by military might, hence the threat of the "stick" does not bother them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrm, that's an opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I think you're off-base here. The military might is to intimidate governments which might have established ties to terrorists; as I pointed out before there are both direct and indirect ways to combat terrorism. And AFAIK the US military hasn't flattened any cities in recent history. This is what makes it intimidating - a government knows that the US can and *will* destroy their regime with minimal civilian casualties or collateral, so they have much more pressure to bend to the US agenda since they cannot say "they wouldn't dare invade!" any more.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No the military SHOULD be playing a very specific and confined role. Currently, it's been the US's main force in combatting terrorism, and it's not doing a good job of it. Now if it was playing a very specific and confined role instead of invading and occupying countries then it would be a step in the right direction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I think we're getting into semantic debates here, I think you define the specific and confined role(s) of the military to be a narrow field. I disagree; policework and humanitarian aid can also be adequately done by military forces. As I said before, the military plays an indirect role in combatting terrorism.
Well we agree on one point <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Yes, the military does have a role to play, that's correct. I still feel though that surgical strikes and small scale raids coupled with good intel are the best way to utilise America's military resources.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually I'm quite sure that servicemen/women would not recieve a pay raise if the number of enlisted went down.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well neither of us knows for sure. We can let this part of the discussion die I believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the meantime, someone needs to do it, and many UN members don't seem particularly eager to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why should they? They've been locked out of being allowed to help rebuild Iraq and they won't be recieveing any of the benefits that will eventually result. (and this includes Australia I might add despite us helping out). Why should a foreign nation place it's troops in a mess that the US made for themselves? The US rode roughshod over the UN when they decided to invade Iraq, so you can hardly expect UN member states who opposed the invasion to donate troops.
But yes, someone does need to do it. Since the US has decided that one of the ways it will combat terrorism is to invade countries then military spending must increase. I do not think this is the correct course of action however.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good points, but I think one of the other goals of using the US military in both Iraq and Afghanistan (never really stated of course, but always in the subtext) was to flush out terrorists from countries known to abet them, and to send a message to all such countries that harboring terrorists will not be tolerated. This seemed to work pretty well with Syria after the Iraqi war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem is that terrorist groups are commenly in countries that don't even know they are there. Since by their very nature terrorist groups are secrative and try to remain hidden, they won't go actively seeking the support of a country. If a country does know they are there and openly admits it then the terrorists there have lost one of their most vital tools: secrecy. If a country harbors terrorists in secret, this is another matter, but such countries are rare, naturally because they become pariahs in the world community.
Now of course for the above theory to work, that of flushing out terrorists and sending messages, there have to be terrorists present in the first place. Scarse indeed has been the evidence of Al Quaeda in Iraq. Afghanistan was another matter, but again, most countries don't know they have terrorists inside their borders. Where does one draw the line between harboring and ignorance? Take Indonesia: the government has been actively working to confront terrorism and hunt it down but there are terrorist groups within it's borders. Sending a message only applies to a very few and selective nations, and nations such as Iran and North Korea are probably going to hear a differant message, that of the need to develop WMD as a defensive measure against American invasions. (Might sound like reverse logic but consider that the US hasn't stormed into Pyongyang despite clear evidance that the North Koreans have nukes. Now it seems Saddam didn't have them and he got crushed).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I partially agree with this, but at the same time increasing funding isn't just a sign that the administration is applying a normative response; it is also a symbolic act.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I still think the money could be better spent on education, health services etc but that's another debate. It is symbolic true, but the extra defense spending doesn't seem to have convinced the US public that they are safe. Weekly terror alerts still appear and many Americans remain nervous of another attack. Hence, its hard to understand what is being achieved by such symbolism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But as stated previously, the point of the military is not to kill terrorists; it's only a side-job if you will. You're mistaking direct persecution of terrorists with indirect, and both are very important (at least I think so).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats just it though; how effective is the indirect approach and has it produed any results? The jury is still out on Iraq but the Afghani war doesn't seem to have had a huge impact on Al Quaeda, directly or indirectly. I believe that if you try and indirectly attack terrorist groups the result is minimal. Of course, if by indirectly you include methods such as freezing bank accounts, wire taps and satilite survaliance then we would be in agreement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To use another analogy, say you have a sword, and the guy you're fighting has a knife. Are you not going to put on armor because "you have a sword, and it ought to be good enough to kill the knife-wielder"? To put it bluntly, being more advanced and powerful than other militaries does not make the US military godlike in any sense. Therefore, anything that helps reduce the body count on our side is good.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, true. I just feel that much of that money could be better spent elsewhere.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That wasn't the point. There are guards, but how are we sure of their reliability? We can listen to the Russians for example, who will tell you that their missile silos are well guarded, but are they really? So really we would have to post our *own* guards at every missile silo in the world. And even then it would be nice to have a backup to fall on in case something does go wrong. Just because it's unlikely that terrorists get an ICBM doesn't mean it won't happen. I already said my opinion was that it was too expensive at the current time, but it still is a logical thing to build.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Russians have every reason to guard their silos well because they don't want anyone getting their hands on an ICBM. By your reasoning, the US should be building a missile sheild to protect itself against <i>American</i> ICBMs that terrorists could steal. "Oh, but our guards are much better". Every nation guards it's ICBMs extreamly well. If we are to live in fear that terrorists are able to infiltrate a nuclear missile silo and launch it and aquire the activation codes and make it hit it's target then there's no point in trusting another nation that it's security is adequate. China for instance, could justifiably call on the United States to dismantle all it's ICBMs because it considers US security to be lax.
Then there's the problems that putting up said sheild are creating. For the past 60 years there had been a complete lack of major conflicts. Wars have been small scale affairs compared to the slaughters of the first half of the century. A very prominant theory in political science holds that the reason for this is nuclear deterrance. Now so far no nation with nuclear arms has attacked other that possesses nuclear arms. What nuclear deterrance may have achieved is the end, or at least a temporary reprive, from large scale military conflict. With the US going ahead with it's sheild 60 years of deterrance stratagy is being thrown out the window. Nations that possess ICBMs have already begun to show they are very worried by the US. Russia and China both rigourously oppose the treaty and with good reason: they have no desire to do away with deterrance stratagy and see their multi-trillion dollar investments become obselete.
Now if the US says "Oh, we want it just in case something goes wrong" then China, Russia, France, Britian, India and Pakistan are all going to say "Well, we're gonna make one too". We then enter into a very dangerous period indeed, where with nuclear deterrance removed the threat of major conflict looms anew. Considering how much slaughter humanity was able to inflict upon itself with the technology of 1914 and 1939, how much damage could we do with the technology of 2010? In attempting to prevent loss of life, the US may end up triggering a chain of events that ends with a world war far more devestating than anything witnessed before. I for one, never want to see that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And AFAIK the US military hasn't flattened any cities in recent history. This is what makes it intimidating - a government knows that the US can and *will* destroy their regime with minimal civilian casualties or collateral, so they have much more pressure to bend to the US agenda since they cannot say "they wouldn't dare invade!" any more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Flattening cities" was just a turn of phrase. I simply ment to illustrate the kind of sentiments that are expressed in threats of military force. Btw recent history for a historian like myself encompasses the 20th century so yeah the US has flattened cities in recent history. But I'm just being a jerk there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Like I've said above, most terrorists reside in nations that do not know they are there. Hence, military force isn't much of a deterrant to terrorists. Terrorists also do not get much benefit from links with any nation. Indeed, there are distinct disadvantages: it draws attention to the location of the terrorists and locks them down in one place hence denying them mobility. Thus any deterrance will be minimal at best.
Wrong thread ? Or your point is really subtle then...
So now I'm Hitler? Thanks, I'm honored. (Sarcasm) <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Can we keep without the personal attacks please?
Anyway...
Yes, I <b>can</b> go applying my cultural standards to another culture. We can't act as if all cultures are different, but all equal. Radical Islam is a failure. Lets consider its 'accomplishments'... Women are property, killing is ok if you disagree with the person, freedom is evil, etc. There is no economic development. Personal rights and a respect for human dignity are non-exsistent. Governments are corrupt and the populace is neutered powerless.
Yeah, thats equal to Western Civ. Yup.
I'm not saying we find all other cultures and eradicate them. I'm saying that if a culture poses a threat, we have a right to remove that threat and overtake an inferior culture. I'm saying that the removal of Fundamental Islam is ok, because it is an inferior culture which poses a threat. Removing Islam as a whole is NOT ok, because the culture isn't a threat. To simplify it...
Western Civ: We're cool with you, if you're cool with us.
Other Civs: Ok, thats cool. We're cool.
However, Fundamental Islam is like this....
Western Civ: We're cool with you, if you're cool with us.
Islamic Facism: No, you're evil and we must destroy you.
Someone will probably bring up the point "Well, if you're judging Fundamental Islam as evil, why can't they judge Western Civ to be evil." Simple. There are objective moral principles on which we can judge culture and values. I listed many above in Fundamental Islam's accomplishments. Ironically, Ryo commented that I was Hitler while employing the same logic that would allow genocide to take place.
Regular Islam used to be an amazing culture. It led the world in Math and Science. It was the first to recognize the 'rights' out cultural outsiders. It was tolerant (Christian and Jews had protected legal status, though not full citizenship). THIS is the Islam I want to see flourish throughout the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Radical Islam is a failure. Lets consider its 'accomplishments'... Women are property, killing is ok if you disagree with the person, freedom is evil, etc. There is no economic development. Personal rights and a respect for human dignity are non-exsistent. Governments are corrupt and the populace is neutered powerless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats how these people have decided to live their lives. This is their culture, and we have no right to say that it is wrong, corrupt or decedant. If you go and say such things to these people you will only cause hatred and further tensions. Now if you truely consider that it is a failure, then it will die out anyway, so you have no reason to state that it is a failure, nor even be concerned about it.
EDIT: Withdrawn. I apologise for the personal attack that Adolf entails.
I don't think Jammer was even considering genocide , but rather <i>ethnocide</i> : not eliminating the people , but the culture. Though entire tribes of native americans were massacred , most of them were just dissolved during the ethnocide as the natives were assimilated by the western society. They lost their roots , and the surviving tribes are few. The south american civilizations were completely destroyed.
So , according to Jammer the cultures revolving around radical islam are inferior and should be destroyed. This is completely different from racism , but still sounds like a very intolerant point of view indeed. It doesn't justify calling someone Adolf either.
However, the view that one culture is superior or inferior to another falls in exactly the same catagory as racism and sexism. It is a view that has no place in this forum.
Do you reject all judgement of cultural norms, that is, will you defend a culture's right to endorse slavery?
If yes, your indifference has led you into amorality.
If no, your unwillingness to clearly define the super-cultural norms that do exist borders on emotivism.
That is why moral relativism fails.
Anyway, you can't destroy a culture by force of arm. Want proof? Walk through a saxon suburb and watch skinheads in military clothing do the Hitler-salute. The biggest war in mankinds history didn't manage to terminate the enemys 'culture'.
Cultural ideals, no matter how misled, are not dying with their believers, on the contrary, they can even create martyrism only fueling a cultures flame. Overcoming Fundamentalistic Islam can not be a military operation.
Anyway, you can't destroy a culture by force of arm. Want proof? Walk through a saxon suburb and watch skinheads in military clothing do the Hitler-salute. The biggest war in mankinds history didn't manage to terminate the enemys 'culture'.
Cultural ideals, no matter how misled, are not dying with their believers, on the contrary, they can even create martyrism only fueling a cultures flame. Overcoming Fundamentalistic Islam can not be a military operation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point Nem, but you must admit there is a difference bewteen the suppresive Nazi reigme that exist during WWII with an almost limitless capability for war and what the culture has become today. Perhaps the goal of the military action is not to elminate a culture but to make it less dangerous to the world?
So you're saying that if the Nazi regime existed on multiple fronts and in much less concentration but with the same sort of war machine than we wouldn't have had a right to attack them? Also I don't think US intervention in WWII drove moderate members of the Nazi party to become more Fundamentalist, but had an opposite effect, again this is of course very different from Iraq because of the range and scope of the problem.
My whole belief was that Iraq was very much a symbol for Fundamentalist ideas, but of course on a much less grandious scale than Nazi Germany.
Besides, a strike against the Fundamentalistic culture would be a pre-emptitive war at best, and as of now, there is no institutionalized right for an attack war. I'm the last one to question the United States (or anyone elses) right for a self defense or alliance with defenders, but unlike in WW2, this scenario isn't very likely in the current situation.
[edit]Also, the Iraq was reigned by a 'socialist' party. Hussein is/was an atheist using religious rethoric for his own ends. But we're straying off topic. This topic is only tangentially connected to the Iraq war.[/edit]