Reuben Gant Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Be safe Nick, today and in the coming days. I have many friends in London that use public transport, so I will be uneasy until I hear from them. Good to hear from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 VERY SCARED RIGHT NOW. Bombs appear to be exploding around London. Tube system has completely closed. Don't know what is happening............ 376239[/snapback] Stay safe, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Why don't you read the sarcastic reply that comment was in response to before giving advice? If you are going to be critical of that kind of thing, at least be fair about it and recognize who fired the first shot. I don't think pointing out the long, long history of military operations failing to stop terrorism is either reactionary or naive. Perhaps worse is the pollyannish belief that military operations will work, everything is just hunky-dory and the insurgency is in its "last throes". The idea that military operations will not stop terrorism is supported by way too much evidence, historical and contemporary, to categorize it as a reactionary view based just on todays events. My main point that military operations won't stop terrorism and ultimately, a political solution will be necessary is not just my own view. The US military seems to agree hence their willingness to meet with insurgency leaders and to incorporate them, if they are willing, into the political process in Iraq. If you read back throught the posts, you will see that my initial observation was just that and the response it engendered was accusations of appeasment, abandonment of Israel and similar crap. 376572[/snapback] Actually, the sarcastic response was to a poorly framed post by you, which started with an improper analogy. If you are attacked by a swarm of bees, your primary motive is to totally destroy the nest, while understanding that you will be bitten in the interim. If you want me to criticize JSP for advocating turning Mid East into a parking lot to solve the problem, I've done it before. Obviously, you felt necessary to take a polar opposite view. You waded into the muck when you discounted that military operations will stop future terrorist attacks, or even have a major effect on minimizing them. That's why you got a smart ass reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Mick, You appear to be saying that military operations have no place in this and we should all be resigned to being attacked. If that is what you meant or you are in favor of some other type of force, you should clarify your position and describe it more fully. If you feel the military should be used to some extent, you should describe the extent. If you feel force has no place at all, you should state that. With all due respect, you seem to be stating we're all stupid for not just throwing up our arms and hoping we are not the next one blown up. 376484[/snapback] Military operations alone will not work, ultimately, a political solution is what is necessary. From that view, respectfully, I don't think it is fair to conclude that I think we should just say "aww shucks" and walk away hoping it doesn't happen again. Ask yourself the question, will military operations alone stop al Queda? It hasn't stopped terrorism in Israel. It hasn't stopped terrorism in Iraq. It hasn't stopped terrorism in Russia. I just don't think it works. Bad news, I know but don't blame the messenger. If we don't agree on the premise, that military operations alone won't stop terrorism, then there is no real point in discussing the alternatives and the role force might play in whatever solution there is out there to this mess. That is the next discussion, the first is whether military operations, the actions of armies, navies and other organized forces, can stop terrorism. If you think it can, tell me how. If you agree that it can't, then lets talk about what political options might work or how the use of forces and diplomacy together might be more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 National Strategy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortBusDriver Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 yes b/c I posted to get a rise out of you idiots..checked to see if you bit..you did..including you.. a loser that needs to register another name to bust on people...congrats on being a loser...BTW I am done here.. so your responses will go unread 376580[/snapback] What is next, "I'm rubber and you're glue...?" I obviously got under your skin. I will have a "special" seat reserved for you to make up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Actually, the sarcastic response was to a poorly framed post by you, which started with an improper analogy. If you are attacked by a swarm of bees, your primary motive is to totally destroy the nest, while understanding that you will be bitten in the interim. If you want me to criticize JSP for advocating turning Mid East into a parking lot to solve the problem, I've done it before. Obviously, you felt necessary to take a polar opposite view. You waded into the muck when you discounted that military operations will stop future terrorist attacks, or even have a major effect on minimizing them. That's why you got a smart ass reply. 376607[/snapback] Was stating the view that military operations alone will not stop terrorism and that ultimately a political solution will have to be involved a smart ass comment? Was it name calling? Was it sarcastic? "Wading into the muck"?? How so? It's not like it is some sort of revolutionary statement on tactics or anything. Heck, DC Tom made the same point to me over two years ago in the lead up to the Iraq war which I supported. I don't get the rules here so maybe you could explain. Is it okay to be sarcastic and disrespectful in a response even if the post your responding to wasn't? Is the standard whether or not the postion stated is one you agree with or not? Given the smart ass reply I got, was I justified in giving it back to him or to protect myself from your approbrium was it necessary for me to turn the other cheek? I'm sorry but I believe my initial post was neither insulting, sarcastic, a personal attack nor even an overheated rhetorical salvo. It was simply stating a point which many, even on the right agree with, that military operations alone will not stop terrorism. The responses I got from quite a few were sarcastic, insulting and personal. I responded in kind. On that record, you chose to chastise me while you let the rest pass without comment. I used to ignore that stuff for the sake of trying to get through the name calling to a real debate but after several years of it, I gave up. I stay away from the board for that reason but when a topic on the TSW gets moved, I stay with it and don't hesitate to respond in kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Military operations alone will not work, ultimately, a political solution is what is necessary. From that view, respectfully, I don't think it is fair to conclude that I think we should just say "aww shucks" and walk away hoping it doesn't happen again. Ask yourself the question, will military operations alone stop al Queda? It hasn't stopped terrorism in Israel. It hasn't stopped terrorism in Iraq. It hasn't stopped terrorism in Russia. I just don't think it works. Bad news, I know but don't blame the messenger. If we don't agree on the premise, that military operations alone won't stop terrorism, then there is no real point in discussing the alternatives and the role force might play in whatever solution there is out there to this mess. That is the next discussion, the first is whether military operations, the actions of armies, navies and other organized forces, can stop terrorism. If you think it can, tell me how. If you agree that it can't, then lets talk about what political options might work or how the use of forces and diplomacy together might be more effective. 376609[/snapback] Nothing stops terrorism. It's been around since the dawn of man and will likely be practiced until we cease to exist (likely our own doing). The objective is to slow the pace, using every tool in the bag. The hammer is one of the tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilltheCat Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 My hearts and prayers with you Nick and Brit. I am so sorry for your country 376523[/snapback] I agree with your sentiments but when it comes to feeling sorry for Britain I am not so sure. From my reading of history, usually when someone "prods that bear" (as somebody here often states), they get eliminated, and generally sooner rather than later. I pity the poor bastards that piss them off to this extent 'cause it often provokes a nasty response - at least when the conservatives are in power. In this case - the nastier the better as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Nothing stops terrorism. It's been around since the dawn of man and will likely be practiced until we cease to exist (likely our own doing). The objective is to slow the pace, using every tool in the bag. The hammer is one of the tools. 376629[/snapback] I tried saying this same thing in the "center stage" thread, and was told by Wacka, RKfast and Mr. Clutch that terrorism aparrently can be stomped out 100 percent and that we shouldn't get used to it and prepare for it. Ask them, they'll tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I tried saying this same thing in the "center stage" thread, and was told by Wacka, RKfast and Mr. Clutch that terrorism aparrently can be stomped out 100 percent and that we shouldn't get used to it and prepare for it. Ask them, they'll tell you. 376655[/snapback] I can't help anyone willing to drink all the Koolaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I think one thing that's being ignored here is HOW MUCH force to use until it becomes effective. Terrorism CAN be stopped cold, but you have to be pretty inhumane to reach those levels. Most of the great Empires have been successful at rooting out and removing terrorists, but they've all conducted themselves in ways that our government could never act in order to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 This thread was not meant to be a PPP Thread. I am closing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts