Changing the Rules of War

[Firestarter 0]

Moslem incompetence, fantasy, and hypocrisy - Discarding War's Rules, an article by Dr Daniel Pipes

 

A fascinating read, with indisputable premises and inevitable conclusions. I've been saying for some time now that Moslem ambitions, aggressions, and successes are founded primarily on the self-serving and deceitful philosophy of the power of victimhood. This excellent article not only makes that fact clear and explicit, it explains why the President has taken the steps he has to counter it, and delineates what we must do in the future to render it a nonviable strategy.

[Guest JMA]

An interesting article. It's a question what we're willing and not-willing to do. If the US was as ruthless as our enemies, this war would already be over. Period. But do we want to sink to the depths of these scum? It's a typical "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation. Either way, the rest of the world still won't be too fond of us. Thanks for the link, Marney.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Wow, I couldn't disagree with that article more. That proposes taking the very actions we find deplorable. I'm a firm believer in revenge, but at least do so with dignity. Should we start strapping bombs to our teenages? Gas their civillians? Wreck their planes into their buildings? It's a completely cowardly cop-out proposal that effectively brings the mideast idea that WE are the terrorists full circle.

 

But hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?

[Firestarter 0]

Wow, I couldn't disagree with that article more. That proposes taking the very actions we find deplorable.

You completely misread the article; it advocates nothing of the sort. Here is what it does support and advocate:

 

Pre-empt: Knock out fantasist leaders (the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat) before they can do more damage.

 

Rehabilitate: Dismantle their polities, then reconstruct these along civilized lines.

 

Impose a double standard: Act on the premise that the U.S. government alone "is permitted to use force against other agents, who are not permitted to use force."

 

Nowhere in the article is there any advocacy for using terrorism against terrorists. Nowhere does it advocate the murder of civilians, mass destruction, suicide bombings, or the use of chemical weapons. The only measures it advocates are strategic, social, political, and legalistic in nature: measures that render worthless the Moslem strategem of exchanging powerlessness for power.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Pre-empt: Knock out fantasist leaders (the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat) before they can do more damage.

 

Rehabilitate: Dismantle their polities, then reconstruct these along civilized lines.

 

Impose a double standard: Act on the premise that the U.S. government alone "is permitted to use force against other agents, who are not permitted to use force."

 

Well hooray for us reworking terrorist goals with good old western knowhow.

 

While the gassing and suicide attack bits I threw in were primarily hyperbole, what's the difference in doing these things with a nailbomb or an M-16? The ends are still primarily the same, it's just that our means would be more sanitary.

 

Overall, the above would translate as this:

 

"We killed your leader."

"You will change your beliefs."

"You are our bitch."

 

Sure, I guess it would "work," but it would just brew the same problems.

 

"The USA took our leaders, our beliefs, and now we can't even do anything about it? Blow yourself up with pride, Haseem."

 

While I agree with his assessment of the terroists' MO, his own remedies are completely fucking skewed.

[Guest Breetai]

Agent has just stumbled upon the essential truth about the war on terror; fighting terror in the way that America has been doing, ie. the invasion and overthrow of countries at will, breeds nothing but more terror a few years down the line.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I didn't stumble on anything, it's common sense. However, we have to take action against those fuckers, whether it be political, or by blowing them to smithereens.

 

If we could actually catch, or kill a leader like Hussein or Bin Laden, it would go a long way, but simply stepping across the pond and throwing our weight around just seems like a bad idea.

[Firestarter 0]

Overall, the above would translate as this:

 

"We killed your leader."

Correct. In its proper context, "We killed your leader because he murdered innocent people and supported or committed acts of terrorism."

 

"You will change your beliefs."

Almost correct. Again, in context, "You will either change or refuse to act upon those beliefs which require you to murder innocent people in order to serve your god. If you encourage, support, or commit such murders we will hunt you down and we will kill you. Please note that Jews are defined as people. If you do not accept this definition and you murder Jews we will also hunt you down and kill you."

 

"You are our bitch."

Correct. In context, "You have rejected both the benefits of civilisation and the codes of conduct civilised behaviour requires. As a result you are too evil to compromise and too weak to conquer. Now you are reaping the inevitable harvest of your evil and your weakness. Stop whining."

[Firestarter 0]

the invasion and overthrow of countries at will, breeds nothing but more terror a few years down the line.

Bullshit. Everyone predicted that "the Arab street" would rise after we invaded Afghanistan. It didn't. The Arab street was very loud before we invaded, yes. As soon as the Marines landed, it went as quiet as a mouse. Barely a squeak could be heard. Very few "death to America" chants, even in Iran. Yemen suddenly wanted to be our best friend. Saudi Arabia cracked down on its militant imams without even being asked. Pakistan pledged absolute support. Even Saddam Hussein shut his mouth for a few minutes as thousands of cruise missiles roared into the Taliban's "impregnable mountain fortresses" and blasted them into fine powder. Not one Arab opened his mouth as real Hellfire sent thousands of the "unconquerable warriors of God" to an earlier appointment with Him than they were expecting - those "warriors" that didn't switch sides as soon as they saw a Marine releasing the safety on his rifle. Posters of Usama bin Laden went unsold on the streets of Pakistan. The foreign "fighters" of the "die-hard Taliban" turned tail and ran for the border.

 

Invasions and wars only breed terrorism if we lose. And that's simply not going to happen.

[Firestarter 0]

Further documentation of this trend can be found in two more columns by Dr Pipes:

 

Victory Shifts the Moslem World

 

100 Bin Ladens on the Way?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

In brief, until those Harris calls "Islamic fantasists" play by the rules, Washington must be prepared to act like them, without rules.

 

Yeah! Kill those civilians! Destory those priceless monuments! Punish the people of the Middle East for the terrorists actions!

 

That'll show them they were wrong about America! That'll teach them America is a country of freedom, and fairness, and all that jazz!

 

Hell let's nuke 'em! then we won't have to worry about ANYONE bothering us again!

[Firestarter 0]

Just like AoO and Breetai, you missed the point completely. What Pipes and Harris advocate breaking is not the rule which forbids mass destruction and the murder of civilians, but the implicit acceptance of militant Islam as a responsible, honourable, and respectable power which abides by the same codes we do. Neither pre-emption, nor the rehabilitation of Moslem polities, nor a double standard in the use of force inherently violates any moral standard recognised by the civilised world. Your childish sarcasm is directed against an argument no one has made.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Washington must be prepared to act like them, without rules.

 

What Pipes and Harris advocate breaking is not the rule which forbids mass destruction and the murder of civilians, but the implicit acceptance of militant Islam as a responsible, honourable, and respectable power which abides by the same codes we do.

 

Now I'm not the brightest guy but...

[TheFranchise 0]

Now I'm not the brightest guy but...

Seconded.

 

 

sorry CWM, that was for my 1000 thread

[Justice 0]

But you are good at taking things out of context. He basically advocates taking a far tougher stance on the Arabs than we've been taking so far.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

You've Invaded Afghanastan and Iraq. You'll be in Iraq for the next generation.

 

Can you afford to take a tougher stance?

[Justice 0]

You've Invaded Afghanastan and Iraq. You'll be in Iraq for the next generation.

 

Can you afford to take a tougher stance?

*Looks at Israel, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Yassar Arafat.*

 

Yeah, I think we could.

 

And we didn't invade, we liberated. Unless you consider Saddam and the Taliban to be good leaders for their respective countries, that is.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Marney, I'd love to agree with you, but what those fellows are saying goes against anything that I know about being American. It reeks of imperialism, and I'm not very comfortable with American as an imperialist power.

[Guest Breetai]

And we didn't invade, we liberated.

And the Iraqi people are SOOOOOO happy to be liberated, what with the post-war death toll being higher than the one during the war.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Liberate? Ha

[Justice 0]

And we didn't invade, we liberated.

And the Iraqi people are SOOOOOO happy to be liberated, what with the post-war death toll being higher than the one during the war.

Wow, because we've been there longer than a month? The war was over in a month, the fact that it only eclipsed the war death toll doesn't really in, oh, August when we've been there for around 4 or 5 doesn't really surprise me.

 

Just because people are fighting us doesn't mean the people don't want us there, moron. A vocal minority, silent majority. But hey, if you want to judge the will of many by the will of the few, I suppose everyone down south is a KKK member and every one in Michigan is like Tim McVeigh, right?

 

Liberate? Ha

 

Oh shut up. Explain to me how they were better off under Saddam.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Not that I am not shedding any tears over Saddam's ended rule, or death of his demon span, but what happens if life after Saddam ends up being worse? What if Iraq becomes the new terrorist haven? There is still a long way to go with thing, and I honestly don't see it being any easier right now. So we will see what happens, but this has the makings of the "peace from hell", and I really hope it doesn't come to that. Just thought I give my two cents.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Wonderful article. I've thought we should have been more hardline toward these worthless pieces of shit for some time. It's good to see people are not being brainwashed by the popularity of appeasement and are actively defending a tougher stance against terrorists and the regimes which support them.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

On one hand, we are the United States. Although we're tough as nails, we do not act as barbarians even when our opposition do (go read the tales from the captured Hussein bodyguards. There's some truly gruesome asasassinations in there.) There are some minor exceptions, such as refusing to sign the landmine treaty (why is this, are landmines THAT effective in today's warfare?)

 

Act One risks actually making more terrorists. However, they're disorganized terrorists. Act Two requires more work than we alone can provide, as we're finding in Iraq. It's very hard to bring a country into civilzation when many people who live there simply have nothing.

 

Act Three... Well, I don't know. I'm generally against the United States having special rights in privelages in war simply because their arsenal is larger than anybody else's. If fleshed out, I guess it wouldn't be that bad.

[Art Sandusky 0]

We... put our military within their borders in a hostile action designed to neutralize their entire government and military. I think that's the definition of an invasion.

 

Now then, what the invasion's intent was can be called a liberation.

 

After I saw where this guy's readers come from according to the "About this site" or whatever page, and looking at said sites (and seeing Ann Coulter as a columnist on one of them), I didn't bother reading anything the guy had to say. I know I'll just disagree and get all worked up. I'm sure he was really eloquent and is a stand-up nice dude, but ehh.

[Guest SP-1]

Liberation doesn't happen by sending in nice people to ask nicely. Liberation can only happen by force in these circumstances. Sometimes you must invade, strike first, etc. in order to accomplish the main goal.

 

Though anyone willing to point out how Saddam took care of his people, I welcome it. Good fiction is hard to find.

[Red Baron 0]

its useless to try to liberate a country like Afghanistan. That area is basically a wasteland that lives on primative standards. I mean they are "rebuilding" in a way, but look how many nations, and army's failed for that region. U.S.S.R., Britian...Hell you can go back as far as Persia and Alexander The Great, and its still no better.

 

The people there won't change, they've been used to change in the government in historic references. Soon the Afghans would ruin the whole country again, and all that money trying to help rebuild would be a waste.

 

Iraq is in a whole different situation. Its no where to be liberated. The people rather see the American soldiers die, then help get liberated. Some Iraqi people are pissed because, Americans invaded with out extensive proof of W.M.D. The main problem is out of the way with Saddam gone, but Americans and other nations men are losing lives there as well.

 

AoO is right that these conflicts will ensure another battles 5-10 years down the line. It might not be as severe, or it could be Yugoslavia all over again.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Not that I am not shedding any tears over Saddam's ended rule, or death of his demon span, but what happens if life after Saddam ends up being worse? What if Iraq becomes the new terrorist haven?

That's why the U.S. and it's allies are staying in the country. To make sure the Iraqi people never have to go through what they did under Hussein. They aren't ready to be self governing, but when they are the U.S, infuence will be gone. Unless the military stations troops there.

In some ways Iraq has become a terrorist haven. The President has said has much, so have Donald Rumseld, Paul Wolfowitz, and severa Generals and military personal.It's not necessairly a bad thing either. It draws the terrorist out into the open, and away from the United States.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Iraq is in a whole different situation. Its no where to be liberated. The people rather see the American soldiers die, then help get liberated. Some Iraqi people are pissed because, Americans invaded with out extensive proof of W.M.D.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.176...icle_detail.asp

 

The American Enterprise and Zogby International researches conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public in four disparate cities, and the results are pretty optimistic.

 

- 7 out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be much better in 5 years.

 

- When asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on, the US system was by far the most popular.

 

- 60% said they did not want an Islamic government.

 

You should all check the site out for a more comprehensive summary.

[Firestarter 0]

There are some minor exceptions, such as refusing to sign the landmine treaty (why is this, are landmines THAT effective in today's warfare?)

1. Landmines are used extensively in the DMZ between North and South Korea, yes. And yes, they serve a vital strategic purpose there.

 

2. US landmines are far more advanced than any other country's, and are equipped with standard remote detonation/deactivation systems, which means they pose practically zero threat to civilians after a given conflict is over. Therefore it makes perfect sense in both strategic and humanitarian terms to insist on other countries adhering to a ban on landmines while refusing to sign it ourselves.