America declares war on Fire

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 18, 2007, 01:00:35 PM

Quote

This whole idea of "America declares war on Fire" is basically a symbolism to the War on Terror, simply because the Americans are fighting a war in which they can't possibly win.

wrong.  we can win.  it just depends on the definition of winning.  this may seem like an oblique argument and word-parsing, but it is entirely relevant, and actually at the very core of the debate on the gwot.  in warfare, it not a widely or publicly known, but an absolute fact taught directly or indirectly in all military academies and rotc schools, that there is no such thing as "winning" in terms of checkers or monopoly.  there is not a war in history that has been "won" in those terms.  there are only various shades of not losing, when all the short and long-term costs are added up.  in fact, sometimes the "losers" are in fact the "winners", through the eyes of history.  unfortunately or not, that filter is not how war planning nor battle decisions are typically made.

john kerry once said he would like to see terrorism reduced to a level of "nuisance".  while i will not reveal my feelings for the man, i will point out that he was ridiculed for that statement.  yet countless military expert think-tanks staffed with active and retired generals of all stars, cols, and ex-cia, fbi, and nsa agents of various political persuasions have said the exact same thing, often in publicly published papers, just in alot more words.  not a single goddamned civilian i have ever met (or asked) has read a single one. 

so make not mistake, in that context, america *can* "win" against terrorism.  and that will likely be the best we'll ever achieve - whether against islamic extremism, or whatever the next most significant threat comes after that goes out of fashion (and it will).  whether or not americans and the rest of the world are willing to stomach the consequences of such a "victories" (some would argue the emergence of a global police/militarized state though i don't necessarily agree), is another question.

another way to "win" is to nuke the entire middle east to glass and ash.  at one time that fantasy was vaguely appealing to me though i wouldn't have admitted it because, well, millions of innocent people would die as a direct outcome alone.  yet it seems that remains a fantasy for a significant number of americans and other nationalities.  either way, as a result of such an action, there would be pesky consequences both immediate and long-term (radioactive fallout wouldn't be as bad as many think, with the fusion reaction secondaries of modern warheads), annoying moral issues, and the cold hard fact that any apparent win is actually not, since no war is ever actually won.  (don't mistake this acknowledgment of a global intellectual point of view, with a retrospective opinion on my own service and sacrifice.)

"terrorism" is a method of irregular warfare, as old as warfare itself.  as long as any relatively homogeneous group (based on race, class, ideology, and/or other factors) finds itself in opposition to another homogeneous group, while also being relatively politically impotent and militarily outclassed, it will resort to asymmetrical warfare - aka guerrilla, terrorism, etc., if and when it decides violent conflict is the only solution.  (which is often - which is why purposely branding and excluding potential extremist groups from the political process are the historically and continually repeated worst courses of action).  technically speaking, the asymmetrical warfare that the continental army engaged in during the early days of the american revolution, could be called "terrorism" if you really wanted to - from the point of view of the british.  from our point of view, it was justified asymmetrical warfare.

always remember.  the enemy is always evil.  no matter which side you're on.  otherwise, how could you kill them?  leaders make war, not their people.

none of this is an argument for moral relativism though, even though these same points are often used as such.  "one man's terrorist" is *not* necessarily "another man's freedom fighter".  but these understandings are critical to waging an effective war.  as robert s. macnamera once said, in order to defeat the enemy, you must empathize with him.  not sympathize, empathize.  understand his motives.  walk a mile in his shoes.  and use that understanding for strategic and tactical advantage.  the act of demonizing the enemy *prevents* such empathizing, clouds the mind, and is a barrier to objectives large and small.  it is one reason (out of many) the axis lost and the allies won.  (winning and losing being relative terms mind you.)

the problem is that this isn't really a 'war' involving one side against the other or a couple of sides facing another. Terrorism isn't military, it's criminal (at least in terms of Western Terrorism) Lots of big guns aren't going to win this, and neither are the brave efforts of everyone fighting out there (kudos to the troops for sticking with it despite the unfair levelles of critisism against them) because this is against unreasonable nutters.

"I blow you up, i get eternal bliss" How can you argue against that?

"A war is when TWO or more armies are fighting." - Bill Hicks

I wouldn't exactly consider Bill Hicks as an authority on war. Possibly even a bar fight! lol

the problem is that this isn't really a 'war' involving one side against the other or a couple of sides facing another. Terrorism isn't military, it's criminal (at least in terms of Western Terrorism) Lots of big guns aren't going to win this, and neither are the brave efforts of everyone fighting out there (kudos to the troops for sticking with it despite the unfair levelles of critisism against them) because this is against unreasonable nutters.  "I blow you up, i get eternal bliss" How can you argue against that?

military vs. police problem is parsing of words.  foreign nationals killing 3,000 people in a single day's coordinated attack, becomes a military issue - for better or worse.  but what you said has deeper implications than what you describe.  (though you may already understand and agree with): any nation's military force is nothing more than blunt force.  (the us combined forces are getting better though, in tying together all intelligence and armed services - potentially at the peril of civil liberties.)  police work, on the other hand, is often very sophisticated, refined, granular, and controlled.

but the problem is actually different.  (i would argue.)  it's not an issue of "is it a military or police problem".  terrorism, by itself, is not intrinsically a police issue.  the us military is *quite* prepared and effective against state-sponsored terrorism.  an adjective that drastically alters the picture.  why?   because any nation-state can lose it's statehood quite easily by acting badly.  just as iraq did.  (even though they arguably had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and regardless of how things are now.  one thing is clear: the nation-state of iraq lost everything that ever resembled "the nation-state of iraq".)  nations can be bombed and mowed over through brute force and technical advantage, even for the antics of a few terrorists they funded.  loose associations of terrorists of multiple nations, on the other hand, cannot be bombed. 

(one could argue - correctly probably, that 9/11 *was* state-sponsored terrorism, just sponsored by multiple states, many of them strategic allies.)

so that's where the police come in.  although i don't like some of the things going on, i do agree that the military *can*, if done right, tamp down terrorist activity to the level of "background noise" for the police to (more effectively) deal with.

The problem with that thought process is that people don't seem to understand the reality of the threat. I personally could not make it through even one of them without turning away and nearly losing my lunch... but perhaps people need to take another look over the various videos we've been sent of not just the Arabs, but our own people - not even soldiers, but news reporters, people on vacations, etc. - getting their heads *sawed* off.

demonizing the enemy as a faceless, evil villain, will not win anything.  jinghoistic pride and rhetoric is a fantastic hinderance.  all either does is pump up the cannon fodder (and potential future cannon fodder back home), but leaders high and low know it for what it is.  (i am accusing you of neither - just using your quote as a basis for more general statements.)  both are also precisely the mechanisms used and manipulated to convince middle-class islamic kids to blow themselves up for allah.

so, using the hard, sober lens of empathy (not sympathy; empathy), we can see that the enemy does *not* "hate our freedoms".  we are *losing* our freedoms, precisely because of the grossly distorted paranoia over those "freedom haters".  (those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither, etc.)  while the individual suicide bombers may be way past reason, the planners are very calculating and manipulative.  and the ends they are trying to achieve, as they have stated repeatedly but no one seems to hear, is purging the infidel from their "homeland".  period.  (not a nice objective, but still far from "because they hate our freedom".)  pakastan, qatar, saudia arabia - our "alllies" all have direct, well-documented ties to funding terrorist organizations, as some reported of in the 9/11 report.  simply put, they want us out.  but it's not that simple (or attacks would stop if we just left): they also want israel out, and other geopolitical complexities.  so this is not a call to just up and leave, far from it.  it's simply a call for sobriety.

btw, many of the beheading videos from terrorists are fake.  trust me - or not, actually it's pretty clear to anyone with even a passing understanding of mammalian physiology, if you get ahold of them (the videos, not the mammals).  they probably did come from the terrorists (in spite of what some conspiracy theorists say), and they may have actually killed whatever hostage they had.  but in many cases the "body" who's "head is removed" was already either dead and stiff, or a dummy.  this is an argument for nothing (not leniency, not forgiveness, not more or less troops, not more or less outcry.  just a call for sobriety and critical analysis.)

i highly encourage every one to rent and watch an engaging interview with robert s. macnamera, "the fog of war".  he has writings which go into more detail (he is a fascinating man and brilliant strategist), but these are good insights for civvies and should be required watching by all us citizens.

edit: fixed unclosed bold tags (removed bold altogether)

"btw, many of the beheading videos from terrorists are fake."

This is very true, however a screaming person as their head is *sawed* off with a blade, and as it passes through his vocal cords there is the gurgling sound of evacuation for lack of correct body structure... is not fake.

As I said, I'm fully aware of there being plenty of phonies just to rile us up, however there are enough real ones to repulse me personally.

I do not think vilifying the enemy is necessarily the best route either, but my point was that people are glossing over the fact that this really is a war, not just some police status event. They really do want to kill all of us if they could they would and have openly admitted it (scare tactic or no, it's the truth of it) so my point is to try to face the reality of it, not hide from it.

I realize it doesn't really do to get people heated up over it, but there is a vast ocean of people in this country who could really use a wake up call to the grotesque reality of it all. I just think that a lot of people don't take is seriously and have been convinced that there is no reason... *none* for us to still be there.

I realize you weren't accusing me of either, but since you referenced it, I thought I ought to make my position clear for others as well. Please feel free to comment if your opinion varies, I'm open to criticism.

- Optimus

I wouldn't exactly consider Bill Hicks as an authority on war. Possibly even a bar fight! lol

His point, however, is quite well stated.

The only reason the War on Terror is called a 'war' is to drum up feelings of patriotism. 'The Terrorism Situation' or something similar simply doesn't grab the imagination enough

I agree the military should be dealing with sponsored terror and leaving the police to deal with the issue later.

the problem is that so many people see the military as the big lumbering fist of America threatening to smash any Nation that hasn't sent them a Christmas card. As Yoda once said: Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. If America continues to show itself off as a 'big bully' to countries that do something the USA don't want them to do then there will always be a great deal of fear and anger

Quote from: Optimus Prime on December 19, 2007, 02:26:10 PM

I wouldn't exactly consider Bill Hicks as an authority on war. Possibly even a bar fight! lol

His point, however, is quite well stated.

I will say that it's well stated, but also misguided. Actually war *is* defined as:

(From the Oxford dictionary to respect those who dispute US English)

war

  • noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

  • verb (warred, warring) engage in a war.

  — PHRASES be on the warpath be very angry with someone. with reference to American Indians heading towards a battle with an enemy.

  — ORIGIN from a variant of Old French guerre ‘war’; related to WORSE.

Webster's definition is nearly identical.

"btw, many of the beheading videos from terrorists are fake."

This is very true, however a screaming person as their head is *sawed* off with a blade, and as it passes through his vocal cords there is the gurgling sound of evacuation for lack of correct body structure... is not fake.

gurgling can be faked with just a person and a microphone, it's done in low budget movies.  one of the more compelling arguments of fakery is that in most cases, the video cuts away (either a cut or a blurry "pan"), and when it comes back, the body is utterly motionless and stiff.  when the head is "severed" (blurry and extremely high compression / poor quality and tons of motion blur), the body does not spasm.  this is a well-known effect on most higher vertebrates when the spinal cord is severed - the nerves go haywire, sending motor signals throughout the body.  chickens literally run around.  pigs get up and run (if they happen to accidentally get their spasm their bodies up on their feet - otherwise they just thrash on the floor).  yet, this doesn't happen in the videos i have seen.

which is not "proof", nor even evidence, of anything.  just an observation which has not escaped the state department.  it would be hard to describe why the person "allegedly" (but not really) decapitated is no longer around.  or in some cases are found with their heads separately.  all it means is that for whatever reason that is probably beyond our ability to ever know, the actual acts of decapitation in some of the videos are almost certiainly fakes.  maybe they were too uncontrolled, maybe the victims fought too courageously, who knows.

They really do want to kill all of us if they could they would and have openly admitted it (scare tactic or no, it's the truth of it) so my point is to try to face the reality of it, not hide from it.

keep in mind, there is no "they".  the word "they" (some including myself argue), is a telltale sign of the artificial homogenization of one group, by another group (you and i).  usually for the purposes of demonization and/or subjugation.  the jews were "they".  slaves were "they".  you and i, to terrorists, are "they".  this is not a moral judgment on anyone.  it's just an interesting quirk of the human race.  whether the terrorist are "evil" or not, has nothing to do with the fact that we need to acknowledge that "they", are in fact many factions.  we lump them all into "they" at our own peril.  just as we did during the cold war, which is one of the reasons we wound up in vietnam.  (vietnam was "them" - the global communist threat - the domino effect, etc.  when in fact, they were an entirely different sort of "them" altogether, and our failure to understand that led to the outcome.)

it's not criticism, it's just rational debate.  i for damn sure don't have the answers.  just opinions and observations.  this is the kind of stuff bishop doesn't know how to do.  (well, granted this is a bit different.  debating the subjective motivations of humans is quite different than objective scientific observation and experiment.  but bishop can't do this either.)

Quote from: Midnight on December 19, 2007, 05:32:13 PM

Quote from: Optimus Prime on December 19, 2007, 02:26:10 PM

I wouldn't exactly consider Bill Hicks as an authority on war. Possibly even a bar fight! lol

His point, however, is quite well stated.

I will say that it's well stated, but also misguided. Actually war *is* defined as:

(From the Oxford dictionary to respect those who dispute US English)

war

  • noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

  • verb (warred, warring) engage in a war.

  — PHRASES be on the warpath be very angry with someone. with reference to American Indians heading towards a battle with an enemy.

  — ORIGIN from a variant of Old French guerre ‘war’; related to WORSE.

Webster's definition is nearly identical.

I will not dispute the literal definition of the term. However, people who want us out of their country, after the purpose of our invasion has passed, are not an enemy army, they are what we were during the Revolutionary War, only the roles have apparently swapped.

We have no lasting purpose for being there at this point. It is all about the bases we want permanently placed therein, and the contract money that is basically stripping the place of it's sovereignty.

The vast majority of the "troops" we have in that place, according to the last (thus former) and the current (thus today) Commanding General in the field, are mercenaries, hired by us. Bonaparte' taught mankind well.

Being that I come from a long military line in my family, I detest mercs, and have nothing but contempt for their business model. They make their living by killing people and are paid to suppress, deny, and irritate an enemy.

Real soldiers are men of character, conscience, and moral fortitude, not hired guns who laugh at the apparent INABILITY of our nation's Congress to FORCE them to behave in a manner becoming of an American contigent, both on the field of battle, and off of it.

When the point is reached that an overwhelming invading force must hire out to the scum of the ex-pat military underbelly, the signs all point to utter, contemptable failure.

Iraq was in the grip of a Sociopath, a madman, yes, but he maintained ORDER, despite his penchant for excess and violence on his own.

We lit the keg. We must now pay the price.

Agreed. Especially the mercs - I never understood where the hell that brainy idea came from .. wtf? However I don't think they are the majority force. Not sure where that information came from, but I've never heard anyone say the mercs were our primary fighting force over there. I could be mistaken however, and I will look it up.

I do still hold on to the idea that if we were to just leave, right now, and say "c-ya! hope it all works out" it would be a mistake - and not just because "I want all those terrorists to DIIIIEEEEE!!!" - I mean that I don't like the idea of us getting things at least somehwat in hand for them, then just leaving them to get ripped apart all over again by those that wish to do them serious harm and kill them. Whatever the reason.

I'm not so sure if everyone is on the same line, but after Saddam was gone, and we stayed on to help rebuild things and do the diplomatic / political bs we're so *un*talented at... the terrorism did not just start because of us. I think people really believe that. However, terrorism has been a part of their lives for so long now it's just sick. The fact that we ploughed through and turned the government back over to the people certainly pissed off the opposition and hence .. as you said ... now we pay the price. I don't think that eliminates our purpose for being there however, whether it's all about bases or not - the people are what matter, and our service men and women are there for that purpose as far as they are concerned.

I also come from a long line of military men and women, so I can identify as stated earlier. I just think that our people on the ground have better intentions than many people here and elsewhere are giving them credit for. Which is what truly pisses me off more than anything.

I do still hold on to the idea that if we were to just leave, right now, and say "c-ya! hope it all works out" it would be a mistake - and not just because "I want all those terrorists to DIIIIEEEEE!!!" - I mean that I don't like the idea of us getting things at least somehwat in hand for them, then just leaving them to get ripped apart all over again by those that wish to do them serious harm and kill them. Whatever the reason.

I agree with you 110% with that assessment. Unfortunately, actions have consequences, and the "legacy" of the Commander of Thieves will haunt my children...and theirs, for years to come.

Yes, our troops themselves, both serving now and done with tours, are mostly well intentiond, Patriotic, Noble men and women at arms. It's the God Damn BRASS that makes me want to shake a goat to death. Soldiers are a morally devisive demographic. They are programmed to follow orders, and to assume the Big Dogs mean well. When enough of the troops begin to mutiny (which is what we are not being told but seeing more and more) then change begins to occur. Often unforeseen, but dire in implications.

The men who CONTROL the armed forces, at the highest echelons, are the problem, not our women and men on the ground. I support our troops because I believe in them, and what they believe in, not what they are being used as pawns to orchestrate.

The Middle East, in my opinion, isn't about Democracy, or Oil, on our part. It's about Hegemony. Imperialism is old news in the modern era. No one could hold it long enough for such a grand scheme to last. Instead, it is piecemeal land grabbing, and monetary domination. When you control the world's most precious trade routes and infrastructure, you don't NEED armies.

Yes, we have enemies. Fareign and Domestic. We always have, and we always will. That doesn't negate the reality that this "adventure" in the dunes has made us a far sweeter target. Personally, I feel no safer than I did before 9/11. When a creature like myself is more afraid of being stopped in traffic, than from a nut with a bomb, it forces me to take a step back and assess the grim reality that faces ALL of us, not just the "lierbal left wingnut parade".

Whatever side of the fence you sit upon, you cannot, in sane mind, deny, that this war has funamentally changed every facet of our lives. American, and otherwise. Those here at home may not see it, because they are still able to travel to Dunkin Donuts after dark. That will change, and when it does, I will not be the one saying "I told you so".

History is not made by Crusades. It is made from the ashes of failures.

Agreed. Especially the mercs - I never understood where the hell that brainy idea came from .. wtf? However I don't think they are the majority force. Not sure where that information came from, but I've never heard anyone say the mercs were our primary fighting force over there. I could be mistaken however, and I will look it up.

Most sources conservativly number the private contractors in Iraq currently as around 100,000 (from companies like Blackwater, KBR, ect.). Our forces totaled about 160,000 soldiers in July of 2007. It is important to note, though, that a large part of the private contractors are non-combat personel (truck drivers, builders, ect.). Even taking that into account 50, or even 25% of that force is still huge number of armed personel to have in Iraq that do not answer to the U.S. Military.

Quote from: Optimus Prime on December 20, 2007, 01:33:14 AM

Agreed. Especially the mercs - I never understood where the hell that brainy idea came from .. wtf? However I don't think they are the majority force. Not sure where that information came from, but I've never heard anyone say the mercs were our primary fighting force over there. I could be mistaken however, and I will look it up.

Most sources conservativly number the private contractors in Iraq currently as around 100,000 (from companies like Blackwater, KBR, ect.). Our forces totaled about 160,000 soldiers in July of 2007. It is important to note, though, that a large part of the private contractors are non-combat personel (truck drivers, builders, ect.). Even taking that into account 50, or even 25% of that force is still huge number of armed personel to have in Iraq that do not answer to the U.S. Military.

Sources you have failed to cite.

According to Jane's defense Papers, that number is actually around 650,000. More than 1/4 of that are hired mercs. That may not seem like a lot, but think about what 1/4 of 650,000 is, and then ask yourself, knowing that most of our homeland forces are THERE, or the other places, it begins to make one ponder about this further.

We have the most advanced military force that exists, and we are hiring thugs. Clues emerge.

The truck drivers, and infrastructure personnel, and caterers are identified by one company moniker: "Haliburton". The money is in the medicine, not the cure.

For sources to my claims, look at Janes.com, Forbes, Haliburton's official site. The National Archives. Pick one, or all.

Do you have a link to the information?
I don't have a Janes subscription so maybe that was why I was not able to find this statistic on their site...

 I found my figure here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311_pf.html

Though there was a Time article that had the same, I looked throuh Forbes and did not find anything and also searched Janes. The articles at Janes did not seem to give any numbers, there was something about buying a subscription for a full article...
Listen, I am not calling you a liar, can you back up the 650,000 figure?

Do you have a link to the information?
I don't have a Janes subscription so maybe that was why I was not able to find this statistic on their site...

 I found my figure here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311_pf.html

Though there was a Time article that had the same, I looked throuh Forbes and did not find anything and also searched Janes. The articles at Janes did not seem to give any numbers, there was something about buying a subscription for a full article...
Listen, I am not calling you a liar, can you back up the 650,000 figure?

What is the NYT and the WP? Associated Press.

What is Time? "AOL/Time Warner". Think bigger.

My integrity is not in question, and you cannot goad me with appeals to my sense of grandiosity.

The Britts pulled out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4632394.stm

That leaves...who?

Try again.

I think, that USA must have some serious issues, if they declare war on...fire???

I think it will be an even contest

I think, that USA must have some serious issues, if they declare war on...fire???

I think it will be an even contest

Nah... we'll just get Chuck Norris in there... it'll all be taken care of in no time. Never ceases to amaze me how often the government overlooks this simple plan of action.

Chuck norris fights fire with gasonline. And wins.

Chuck Norris is an idiot who supports Huckabee.

I really don't care.

The jokes are funny because chuck norris is a douche bag. Not despite it.

When Chuck Norris does push-ups, he doesn't push himself up from the earth, he pushes the earth away from him.
 

Chuck Norris secretly sleeps with all the women in the world once a month. It makes them bleed for several days afterwards.

When the Bogeyman goes to sleep... he checks the closet for Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris has two speeds, walk and kill.

That damn fire getting all hot again.

on the day before the first day, Chuck Norris created God.

When Chuck Norris jumps into a pond he doesn't get wet, the water gets Chuck Norris.

Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain.
There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist.
The leading causes of death in the United States are: 1. Heart Disease 2. Chuck Norris 3. Cancer
Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls.
Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting.... CHUCK NORRIS GOES KILLING