" Here's my problem with the "compassion and understanding" approach (and with the "peace rallies"): "

Sorry, it's been a few days since I posted. but first off, I do not equate "understanding" with "peace rallies" I think its all a lot more complicated than that.

First off, if I were satisfied that this war were going to protect the United States from further acts of terrorism and bring the guilty to justice, I would support it wholeheartedly. But I have serious reservations about whether or not what we are doing is going to work the way we want it to.

I don't know if it's better than doing nothing. But the point is ... I don't *know*. That's because ... I don't *know enough* about who these people are and why they are doing what they are doing.

If you find the very idea of comprehending your enemies reprehensible, try looking at it from another point of view. We need to comprehend them if we have a hope in hell of winning.

If you want to defeat an enemy, you have to know what he thinks, why he thinks that way, and how he sees the world. Otherwise you will not see him coming.

I believe that if Americans weren't kept in willful ignorance of 90% of all foriegn news for the last 10 years, we would have seen this coming. Bin Laden has been threatening something picturesque and memorable for a long time. But the last time anyone attempted to do anything about him, the American punditry screeched that it was Bill Clinton "wagging the dog" over the Lewinsky scandal.

And the story was dismissed, ignored. And publishers told editors who told us reporters that Americans don't want to read foreign news. (or was it advertisers told publishers told editors told us reporters?)

If they got away with one of the worst attacks on American soil, it's frankly because we the people got caught with our britches down. We were so obsessed with making a million dollars on Yahoo stock and the private sexual behavior of our elected officials that there was no column inches in our newspapers left for such things as the long term aftermath of the gulf war, or the proliferation of bioterrorism facilities in Iraq. I mean, you could find that stuff in the specialized press, foreign affairs magazines, the feminist press (with regard to the Taliban's regime). But the mainstream press? ... JFK, Jr. Why did his Plane Crash?

And, from a certain point of view, the Americans are the aggressor in a war that has been going on for a decade. The Sept 11th attacks was a 1000% escalation in that war, don't get me wrong. But it was a war, and we have been on a side for a long, long time.

Truth is, there might well have been another solution, a diplomatic one, or a covert operation one. Or there may not have been. But we'll never know what chances were thrown away until historians as removed from us as we are from the Zimmerman Telegram start writing the books.

By all means, if you are moved to do so, support the war. Our citizens are under attack. But correct your ignorance as fast as possible.

" I hate reading about how we should "stop our war on the Afghan people" -- this is either incendiary or plain stupid talk. Obviously our war is against the terrorists, and those that support and shield them."

Er, but 70% of the people we are shelling are women and children with no say in their government and no freedom to so much as walk down the street alone. So it may not be "plain stupid".

I personally think the terrorists are alive and well and kicking back shots in Prague or going to hoochie bars in Sydney. They, after all, have passports and money and the wherewithal to get out of Dodge.

" Because they are now in Afghanistan, we have to go there to eradicate them. How does this mean that we are declaring war on Afghanistan? "

Uh, maybe because Bin Laden is not Afghanistan nor does he represent the Afghan government (which sure as hell does not represent the Afghan people)

"Cause and effect can probably be traced back to Shem and Ham, or whomever the original tribal patriarchs were. It's not too difficult, in that region, to light a fire of hatred amongst the people, and to set that fire upon whomever the demagogues please. "

I don't think its any harder to do this in Afghanistan than it is to do right here.

Remember, the last big terrorist attack on American soil was by Tim McVeigh.

I have mega work to do, so more later.
a

Today at a stopover at O'Hare I saw the front page of the Chicago Tribune. On it was a picture of Pakistani nationals, automatic weapons in hand, sitting on trucks heading into Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight the infidels from America. The caption said there were about 5,000 such volunteers.

I had only one thought, followed by despair. The thought: Here are reporters watching 5,000 men go into Afghanistan, hopefully to kill Americans. Since we have this picture, we obviously know where these people are. They're probably moving in a convoy along one or more of the major roads. As soon as they cross the border into Afghanistan, why don't we kill them all? Rain fire from heaven on them. Keep them from killing our boys. Strike a dramatic, devastating blow to the Taliban and their sympathizers. In a matter of moments, 5,000 enemy soldiers dead, their bodies lying in the road as an ominous sign to anyone wanting to take their place.

Then the despair. It'll never happen. We're not serious about winning this war.

On 2001-10-28 21:46, Dave Updegrove wrote:
Today at a stopover at O'Hare I saw the front page of the Chicago Tribune. On it was a picture of Pakistani nationals, automatic weapons in hand, sitting on trucks heading into Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight the infidels from America. The caption said there were about 5,000 such volunteers.

I had only one thought, followed by despair. The thought: Here are reporters watching 5,000 men go into Afghanistan, hopefully to kill Americans. Since we have this picture, we obviously know where these people are. They're probably moving in a convoy along one or more of the major roads. As soon as they cross the border into Afghanistan, why don't we kill them all? Rain fire from heaven on them. Keep them from killing our boys. Strike a dramatic, devastating blow to the Taliban and their sympathizers. In a matter of moments, 5,000 enemy soldiers dead, their bodies lying in the road as an ominous sign to anyone wanting to take their place.

Then the despair. It'll never happen. We're not serious about winning this war.

Now that is the best single objection I've seen to the way this entire business is being conducted. Specific, realistic, and unfortunately probably true.

One thing we definitely should do is make it clear to the world that anyone entering Afghanistan to assist the Taliban openly is fair game.

Why would our government be actually serious about winning this war, at least anytime soon? Its allowing them to award obscene tax breaks [both in the present and retroactive] to various huge corporations with barely any reportage in the mainstream media.
It has also allowed them to pass this Homeland Security bill which is so open-ended that no one can predict where it might lead to, but our elected representatives all [if there were dissenting votes I didn't hear about it] signed on to it.
I'm someone who definitely supports the military defense of my country but I'm rapidly beginning to suspect that "They're lying." I'm starting to feel ill when I think about it.

On 2001-10-28 16:06, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[Mike] All the issues about the other countries HopefulCynic makes are quite right if the US wishes to handle this as a police action, as it has.

They're relevant regardless of whether we call this a police action or a war.

In all postwar conflicts except this one, we were responding militarily to an external situation for which we did not have a pretext for war. This conflict is different. The September 11 attack *can* be employed as a pretext for a declaration of war.

Such a legal declaration would make domestic surveillance a bit easier, and grant Bush more powers of arrest and censorship at home.
It would have little effect on the situation in Asia, since all the realities would remain in place.

[Hopeful] When you call for total war, do you mean a war of conquest? That means ground troops, which requires bases in the area, which means we have the choice of striking alliances with Afghanistan's neighbors, or else conquering them, too.

[Mike:] I see a need for a large number of ground troops. I don't see a need for bases *outside* of Afghanistan. Why not give the Northern Alliance whatever support it needs to seize airfields that will give us ingress into the country. We will need to supply our troops through neighboring countries, but getting the Pakistanis and others to agree to this is *much* easier than getting them to agree to American troops on their soil.

Here you're making an assumption. A plausible one, but not a sure thing: that the Northern Alliance can beat the Taliban and seize the airfields without U.S. ground troops to begin with.

The Taliban are showing signs of being dangerous and effective fighters, in spite of everything, and I'm afraid you're right about how the Pentagon brass has been viewing this. I've feared for years that the freakish example of the Gulf War would end up permeating official culture, and it looks as if it has.

There is no way we can kill al-Qaeda and Taliban forces while they remain mixed with the general population without also killing a great many innocent civilians. We must achieve a separation. We cannot do this from the air, we have to be on the ground in sizable numbers. We could offer protection, food, shelter and medical care to civilian refugees in areas held by Americans and our Afghan allies (this might also help out the Pakistanis who have a serious Afghan refugee problem). We could drop leaflets in the Taliban-held countryside urging those who wish to avoid the war to come to the designated areas where you will be safe and where food and medical care is available. This would produce the separation we desire and permit the use of raw US military might to wage a war in the hinterlands without innocent civilians being killed. We can claim those civilians still in Taliban-controlled territory aren't innocent (they could have left for the refugee facilities).

You could claim it, but it isn't what we claim that matters, it what the other players in the game perceive.

Consider this:

Suppose that as our bombing goes forward, the militant Islamics in Pakistan gather enough public support to depose Musharef, and that it's fairly clear that a majority of his people want him out. I'm not saying they do, must suppose it, because this may yet happen.

The President then has a couple of questions to deal with. Do we send in our ground and air forces to put Musharef back in power, over the objections of his public? Probably, since if we don't back up our allies in a risky situation like this, they'll bolt.

However, if we do that, the opposition propagandists can then truthfully claim that we are behaving imperially, winning a round of the propaganda war.

Further, with more forces assigned to Pakistan to hold it under control, we would inflame Islamic opinion world-wide, and risk opening more fronts. This situation would apply with or without a declaration of war.

If we have to use more forces to keep order there, do we draw them away from Bosnia, from Taiwan, etc? If we do, do we leave those areas open for trouble (and also as useful connection points and breeding grounds for more terrorists, or do we increase recruitment at home, possibly activate the draft again?

Another suppose: suppose the discontent becomes severe enough that the royal families in Kuwaitt and Saudi Arabia are in peril of falling? That really opens a can of worms, possibly nuclear worms.

Finally, if we end up in total war mode and work ourselves into a war against the entire Islamic world (this is near worst-case, but it can't be ruled out), if we don't go nuclear and the opposition doesn't do something really stupid, then we probably would face a no-win situation. In terms of numbers, America could not fight the entire Islamic world alone in a conventional ground war, without resort to utterly destructive measures. Furthermore, the economic disruptions would be almost incalculable for the entire world.

I'm not saying we necessarily shouldn't do any of this. It may be that we'll have no other choices. But right now I think Bush is (or was up until very lately) handling things as well as anyone could have.

By the way, it remains unclear how far American public opinion is really prepared to go, since we haven't had it severely tested yet.

[Hopeful] But make no mistake about the intentions of Japan and even more so Germany.

[Mike] Intentions are meaningless without the might to back it up, and Germany didn't have it. After failing to defeat Britain by herself, Germany had invaded Russia and opened a second front. The economic potential of Britain and the USSR combined was greater than that of Germany and Italy. By 1940, British aircraft production had surpassed Germany's. (After failing to vanquish the RAF in 1940, the Luftwaffe fell further and further behind in air power). Britain would remain secure, and in those days she still had the resources of a world-girdling empire to draw upon. Unlike France, which was vulnerable to blitzkrieg because of its small size, the Soviet Union was too big to blitz. The war promised to drag on for a long, long time.

With all her productive capacity already engaged in the immediate war effort, Germany was in no position to develop fission weapons and had very little in the way of a program. What little work they were doing was in heavy water, which is a wrong approach. On the other hand, the US started its program *before* Pearl Harbor. We were pursuing the right approach and would have had the capability to credibly threaten nuke attacks on the German homeland by the early 1950's.

Thus, Germany posed no threat at all to the U.S. homeland. They *did* pose a threat to the European balance of power, and to the whole world order. As the greatest country in the world it was incumbent that the U.S. play a leadership role in shaping the world order. FDR understood this and when a pretext arose, used it to wage war on both Germany and Japan and so assert American hegemony.

The difference between Pearl Harbor and WTC is that the president in 1941 wanted to wage war, and the president today does not. Had Pearl Harbor happened in 1929, I'm sure Hoover would have been unwilling to wage war as well. Bush's desire not to wage war is entirely consistent with our position in the saeculum.

The public was ready in 1941. It remains to be seen if the public is ready now.

Further, without American support, Britain could have been dealt with eventually by cutting off her links to her overseas empire.
This was, in fact, on its way to happening.

Agreed, Hitler made the grave military error of invading the USSR before neutralizing Britain, and that might have cost him the war in any event, but it's not a certainty.

Should Germany have succeeded in upsetting the balance of power in Europe, we would have faced a situation with a German empire controlled by a hostile ideology, armed with atomic weapons. (Yes, they were on the wrong track, but they wouldn't have stayed so forever, and once America had them, if nothing else they were certain to eventually be stolen by espionage.)

Winning World War II (absent US involvement) would have given Germany the potential to expand its economic power to enormous scale, and that was in fact the Nazi intention.

I can almost see a period sort of like a Cold War occuring in that eventuality, with the lineup being America vs. a Germanized Europe rather than America/USSR.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-29 20:28 ]</font>

Tired or reading, use real player to hear this:
http://www.thislife.org/ra/196.ram

Suppose the President had (1) delcared war, (2) raised taxes dramatically, (2) increased military spending with an emplasis on acquiring massive airlift capacity (3) passed a major tax on gasoline to cut consumption (4) placed a sizable tariff on oil from the Mideast to reduce US dependence on that oil from 25% (where it is now) to less than 10%.

Other than this all the rhetoric remains the same and the US makes the same diplomatic efforts and we look for a post-Taliban government just as we are doing now, but we do NO bombing.

No direct action gives angry mobs little to rail against. When Mr. Tax Cut RAISES taxes, Mr. Oilman takes steps to REDUCE dependence on oil, and then talks about how he and the American people are RESOLVED to see this through (and seems to be making preparations to do just that), he sends a powerful message directly into world capitals everywhere, without firing a shot.

My argument in the previous message was intended to show that there are ways that a suitably prepared America could wage a war in Afghanistan and win. We don't HAVE to lose like we did in Vietnam.

Its too late to try something like this now, the bombing has already begun. For good or ill our path is now committed to a police action type response.

I believe that's why bin Laden made the 911 attack. He gambled that the American response would be police action rather than war. He believes he has a decent chance to win in a police action.

However a Bosnia-type outcome is still possible (although a long shot), and that's what the President is hoping for, IMO.

My point about Germany was that we would have nukes long before they did and we would use them on Germany, just as we did on Japan. After that Germany would no longer be the player it was.

Mike Alexander writes? My argument in the previous message was intended to show that there are ways that a suitably prepared America could wage a war in Afghanistan and win. We don't HAVE to lose like we did in Vietnam. Its too late to try something like this now, the bombing has already begun. For good or ill our path is now committed to a police action type response. I believe that's why bin Laden made the 911 attack. He gambled that the American response would be police action rather than war. He believes he has a decent chance to win in a police action. However a Bosnia-type outcome is still possible (although a long shot), and that's what the President is hoping for, IMO.

On ?The Future, What will the next crisis be like?? thread, I managed to compress my view of the core of the crisis into one paragraph. Guerilla warfare and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction will make it impractical for the major powers to maintain the huge division of wealth over the minor powers. If the major powers do not learn to share and play well with others, they will go wailing home with a black eye. The change in military technology will lead to economic, political and moral upheaval. Ecological considerations will complicate the process.

From that perspective, I will nit pick Mike slightly. Bin Laden already used guerilla tactics to hold off the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. He likely doesn?t care whether Dubya decides on diplomatic, police action, or invasion. Bin Ladin conceivably believes he is holding a winning hand, regardless of Dubya?s tactics.

Years back, when I was writing for an amateur role playing magazine, the topic of the month was how to create believable bad guys for fictional conflicts. Most of the contributors responded with rather shallow suggestions, not that much better than suggesting the bad cowboys should wear black hats. My response was Human Nature, Good Evil or Oxymoron? I tried to use several approaches. (The full article can be accessed from the left navigation bar of http://polyticks.com/ )

Man has instincts, including having extended peer groups and territories. If one threatens or kills members of an extended peer group, if one trespasses on territory claimed by an extended peer group, or seizes resources necessary to the peer group, the peer group will tend to respond violently. Man is a cultural animal. If an outside group acts in such a way as the culture of a peer group must be changed, the peer group will possibly respond violently. Man is a symbolic animal. Peer groups can bond with abstracts, from flags to rights, to traditions of government. A forced separation of culture and abstract can lead to violence. Man is a rationalizing animal. If any of the above should occur, some philosopher, cleric, speech writer or politician will be able to create a system of ethics that justifies use of violence.

In the article, I suggested a Wild West adventure scenario as an example. There were several groups - ranchers, farmers, townsmen, Native Americans and railroad men - contesting for control of a valley. Each valued different resources in different ways. Each had a different culture. Each could convince themselves in different ways that destiny and God was on their side. The key as a creator of fictional conflicts was a readiness and ability to get under the skin of every group. When the players encounter the Indian chief, the game master has to know enough of the history, traditions and emotions of the chief and his tribe to act out his passions and beliefs convincingly.

The shooting has started. A respected member of your peer group is dead. Your way of life is threatened. Your means of feeding your family is not secure. Your surviving peers are standing with guns at ready listening. It is time to make a speech. (These are the 1800s. They are really big on speeches.) Is there any doubt at all that you can convince your peers that you are the Good Guys wearing White Hats? If you declined, would not someone else step forward to make as good a speech? What values will you invoke? What past battles will you mention, to steal a little glory? And is there any doubt at all that the opposing group deserves to burn in Hellfire Everlasting?

Of course, any good GM has to be ready to drop one NPC, and pick up the mind set and persona of another. Yep, across the valley another leader is making another speech. Repeat the above exercise again, and again, and again...

Can Dubya justify the use of violence in defense of the United States and its vital interests? Of course. Will bin Ladin? Certainly. Both sides will trivially be able to construct arguments justifying use of violence to the people whose territory has been trod on, whose peers have been killed, whose resources are being threatened, and whose way of life is being ruined. Both sides will be willing to dismiss the other side?s arguments. That?s why wars are fought. That is the way humans are.

Various contributors to the T4T forums have made arguments that our value system justifies use of violence more than theirs does. This is debatable. This is endlessly debatable. We have already reached the point where morality and ethics are being used not to settle the problem, but as propaganda to improve the morale of the troops in the field. I shan?t try to argue whose value system is best. I shall suggest that my ?Human Nature? criteria have been exceeded all around, that the raw irritants exist that would provide justification sufficient to create believable violent opponents in a role playing game. If I were game mastering current events as a fictional scenario, I?d have no trouble getting into various assorted personas.

Thus, we need to know the balance of power on the battlefield. Alas, we are all on the battlefield.


_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-29 08:48 ]</font>

I have to go to work myself in a few minutes, and that's not enough time for a proper response now, so I'll pick and choose a bit:

On 2001-10-28 19:15, angeli wrote:
...I don't know if it's better than doing nothing. But the point is ... I don't *know*. That's because ... I don't *know enough* about who these people are and why they are doing what they are doing.

So, after long talk and dialogue, all about how our enemies feel, then you might conclude it is best to do nothing. If we only knew more, then we could decide to do nothing.

If you find the very idea of comprehending your enemies reprehensible...

How condescending. I comprehend plenty. I'm making the point that I comprehend but that it doesn't stop the need to try to wipe out the terrorists, and that attacking them is one of many necessary ways to go about it. So let's get on with a proper attack.

If you want to defeat an enemy, you have to know what he thinks, why he thinks that way, and how he sees the world. Otherwise you will not see him coming.

I think we see them, and I think our military sees them, which is more to the point. I also think you can defeat an enemy without first empathizing with the enemy.

I believe that if Americans weren't kept in willful ignorance of 90% of all foriegn news for the last 10 years...

Most Americans don't know or care about anything outside of America. That's the way Americans are. The news media did not "keep" them that way. All the hubbub about the things you mentioned in the media was a case of the media giving the public what it wanted in a 3T era.

And, from a certain point of view, the Americans are the aggressor in a war that has been going on for a decade.

Of course, from a certain point of view. But that doesn't have to make it the consensus view of Americans. And the consensus view is the one that should drive the actions we take as a nation. The "aggression" of America has not been military in origin, only in response. Those against America can only resort to physical attacks, since what else can they do? Then America strikes back militarily. It doesn't make America a military aggressor, as many would have us believe, in the Gulf War and now in Afghanistan.

By all means, if you are moved to do so, support the war. Our citizens are under attack.

I am moved to do so BECAUSE our citizens are under attack. Why aren't you moved to do so?

But correct your ignorance as fast as possible.

Excuse me, have we met? What makes you think you know more than I? I didn't say that I consider myself ignorant. I said I don't care to see CNN giving equal time to the Taliban's speeches.

Er, but 70% of the people we are shelling are women and children with no say in their government and no freedom to so much as walk down the street alone. So it may not be "plain stupid".

I'm not saying I support this kind of shelling. That doesn't mean I think that we have declared war on the country of Afghanistan. We have declared war on the Taliban, and they sneak around hiding amongst civilians. I would prefer a massive infusion of ground troops, to prevent just such errant bombing raids.

I personally think the terrorists are alive and well and kicking back shots in Prague or going to hoochie bars in Sydney. They, after all, have passports and money and the wherewithal to get out of Dodge.

Could be. That's why the rest of the world needs to step up and help.

" Because they are now in Afghanistan, we have to go there to eradicate them. How does this mean that we are declaring war on Afghanistan? "

Uh, maybe because Bin Laden is not Afghanistan nor does he represent the Afghan government (which sure as hell does not represent the Afghan people)

That's what I said. So again, how does this mean that we are declaring war on Afghanistan, if we are after Bin Laden?

I don't think its any harder to do this in Afghanistan than it is to do right here.

I think you meant that the other way around. But I definitely think it's easier to incite people there than here. The poverty, the religion, the control of information are all more pronounced there.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-29 09:11 ]</font>

[richt] I'm not saying I support this kind of shelling. That doesn't mean I think that we have declared war on the country of Afghanistan. We have declared war on the Taliban, and they sneak around hiding amongst civilians. I would prefer a massive infusion of ground troops, to prevent just such errant bombing raids.

[Mike] We have NOT declared war on the Taliban or anyone. We have made no preparations to wage war. From all our actions it seems apparent that the United States has no intention of fighting a war against the Taliban. We appear to be engaged in another "police action" like Bosnia and every other US conflict since WW II.

Right, Mike, exactly: we have NOT declared war on the Taliban. And we should have, back on Sept. 18.

On 2001-10-29 13:00, richt wrote:
Right, Mike, exactly: we have NOT declared war on the Taliban. And we should have, back on Sept. 18.

Why on the 18th? Is that when we found out that they (the Taliban or their friends) had attacked us? Have we found out that they did it? They say that they weren't involved. I have yet to find any indication that they were the ones who attacked us at all. I've been looking. Maybe you all know something I don't?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-29 13:31 ]</font>

richt writes, "Right, Mike, exactly: we have NOT declared war on the Taliban. And we should have, back on Sept. 18."

My understanding of it is that we couldn't declare war on the Taliban without giving them a backhanded legitimacy as a government, which Bush is unwilling to do. That's much like the international legal mess that Lincoln wandered into by "blockading" the Confederacy.

On 2001-10-28 19:15, angeli wrote:
...I don't know if it's better than doing nothing. But the point is ... I don't *know*. That's because ... I don't *know enough* about who these people are and why they are doing what they are doing.

"So, after long talk and dialogue, all about how our enemies feel, then you might conclude it is best to do nothing. If we only knew more, then we could decide to do nothing."

You are putting words in my mouth. You are assuming that if I am not with you I am agin you.

Critical thinking does not equal passivity.

HE-llo!

" I also think you can defeat an enemy without first empathizing with the enemy."

I guess you can try if you want to. But that sure as hell is doing things the hard way.

You seem to think that if you empathize with someone you must be a pacifist. Where did a start equalling b???? Are you having a culture war thing here? Is this Vietnam?

"

I believe that if Americans weren't kept in willful ignorance of 90% of all foriegn news for the last 10 years...

The news media did not "keep" them that way. All the hubbub about the things you mentioned in the media was a case of the media giving the public what it wanted in a 3T era."

Okay, dude. I spent part of the 3T as a journalist overseas. I could have the well-worn conversation with you about whether a newspaper is a public service or a consumer product, and whether what the people want equals what they need. But you're buying the scotch, okay. :smile: Good scotch, too. Glenlivet.

I just remember sitting in a Prague cafe one night with a guy from that bastion of left-wing pacifism and liberal politics Radio Free Europe. And he was getting toasted because he'd spent weeks in Serbia well before the Balkan war and he knew we were about to get involved and nobody wanted to hear it because this was the year of the Lewinsky scandal.

And, from a certain point of view, the Americans are the aggressor in a war that has been going on for a decade.

"Of course, from a certain point of view. But that doesn't have to make it the consensus view of Americans."

Oh? so we're supposed to all think alike now?

Okay, look, its like this. We don't want to be dead. If people are killing us dead, we should kill them. Right? Are we clear on this?

Okay.

But that doesn't mean we should should be stupid. Or lie to ourselves about how we got to here. Or try to make out like we're the perfect white knights in a universe that is somehow mindless automatons. That's Hollywood. This is not Hollywood. This is real life.

" The "aggression" of America has not been military in origin, only in response."

Oh?
How many times have we bombed Iraq since 1992? I bet you don't know. Most Americans don't. Our press didn't cover it much. (the British press did)

I'm not even saying that we shouldn't have. But for God sakes, stop being squeamish!

"It doesn't make America a military aggressor, as many would have us believe, in the Gulf War and now in Afghanistan."

a does not equal b, again.
these are two different situations. (or arguably two different chapters in the same situation)

Nobody attacked us in the Gulf War. Not one American person was killed when Kuwait fell. Oh, but our economic interests demanded that we get involved and so we did.

There is an old saying, take what you want and pay for it. Can we not play Perils of Pauline here and act like grownups. Cause. Effect.

We do x and y happens as a result. Maybe y is less bad than z, which would have happened if we didn't do x. But must we whine and squeal when y happens? Or can't we just say, oh, well, I guess that was a possibility, now let's go about doing q so we can head y off at the pass.

"By all means, if you are moved to do so, support the war. Our citizens are under attack.

I am moved to do so BECAUSE our citizens are under attack. Why aren't you moved to do so?"

Because it's not going to work. Because the terrorists aren't in Afghanistan. They are in Berwyn, Illinois. And we know that. Because bombing Afghanistan makes us feel all good and doesn't do a damned thing to make us more secure in real life.

That's why.

" I didn't say that I consider myself ignorant. I said I don't care to see CNN giving equal time to the Taliban's speeches."

Ah. But *I* consider *myself* ignorant. You see. That's my point. I know enough to know that I don't know enough, Master Yoda. (wax on, wax off :smile: )

"I'm not saying I support this kind of shelling. That doesn't mean I think that we have declared war on the country of Afghanistan. We have declared war on the Taliban, and they sneak around hiding amongst civilians."

The Taliban is, for the moment, the government of Afghanistan. Therefore declaring war on the Taliban is declaring war on Afghanistan.

Now, al-Queda is not the Taliban, which is the other interesting thing. But al-Queda does have a certain amount of hold over the Taliban. I just don't know what that hold is about or why or the history of it. Not knowing makes me nuts. Cause that's your key, right there.

" I would prefer a massive infusion of ground troops, to prevent just such errant bombing raids."

You're saying you want to start a ground war in the mountains in wintertime? That's like the SS trying to pry the Yugoslav partisans out of the Balkans. Yeah, the Soviet Union did so well with that plan too.

(Personally I think we should have armed and trained the women's underground. Now *that* would have been picturesque and memorable. :smile

I personally think the terrorists are alive and well and kicking back shots in Prague or going to hoochie bars in Sydney. They, after all, have passports and money and the wherewithal to get out of Dodge.

Could be. That's why the rest of the world needs to step up and help."

And thats *another* reason why bombing Afghanistan is just plain dumb. We need the rest of the world to help us. Now you may not care what the Czechs or the Austrailians or the Eygptians think of our military action but you'd better start caring because mayhem is going to be averted by some Honza or Ahmed overhearing conversations in some teahouse somewhere. And we're writing international influence checks our influence can't cash. Scary.

" Because they are now in Afghanistan, we have to go there to eradicate them. How does this mean that we are declaring war on Afghanistan? "

Uh, maybe because Bin Laden is not Afghanistan nor does he represent the Afghan government (which sure as hell does not represent the Afghan people)

That's what I said. So again, how does this mean that we are declaring war on Afghanistan, if we are after Bin Laden?"

Cause we're bombing Afghanistan and not Bin Laden? Just a shot in the dark.

A large lump of al-Queda is Saudi, as I understand it. And we're not bombing the Saudis, right?

Just one tiny annoying thing. Since we have started bombing Afghanistan, I'd really like it if we could let Congress actually declare war. It would just make me happy. That's all.

"I don't think its any harder to do this in Afghanistan than it is to do right here.

I think you meant that the other way around. But I definitely think it's easier to incite people there than here. The poverty, the religion, the control of information are all more pronounced there."

Well I'll give you the poverty, anyway.

:smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-29 15:28 ]</font>

{Angeli] Because it's not going to work. Because the terrorists aren't in Afghanistan. They are in Berwyn, Illinois.

[Mike] What do you mean by this?

On 2001-10-29 13:29, Justin '77 wrote:

On 2001-10-29 13:00, richt wrote:
Right, Mike, exactly: we have NOT declared war on the Taliban. And we should have, back on Sept. 18.

Why on the 18th? Is that when we found out that they (the Taliban or their friends) had attacked us? Have we found out that they did it? They say that they weren't involved. I have yet to find any indication that they were the ones who attacked us at all. I've been looking. Maybe you all know something I don't?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-29 13:31 ]</font>

I said Sept. 18 because I think that was when Bush gave his speech. Now that I think about it, he needed to give the Taliban time to respond to his speech comments, so I guess Sept. 18 would not have been correct for a declaration of war. Maybe a couple of weeks later.

On 2001-10-29 17:34, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
{Angeli] Because it's not going to work. Because the terrorists aren't in Afghanistan. They are in Berwyn, Illinois.

[Mike] What do you mean by this?

I think what Angeli means is that associates of the 911 hijackers are already here in America, plotting more mayhem against us. Bombing Afghanistan, and even getting Bin Laden, won't stop the terrorists that are already here from killing more Americans.

My personal opinion is that it's a catch 22. If we do nothing, our enemies will interpret such as weakness and quickly strike us again. OTOH, bombing Afghanistan will certainly inflame less-radical Muslims and make more terrorist attacks likely as well. So, we need to keep up the bombing until we've taken the Taliban out, since we're damned if we do or don't anyway. If a hundred Afghans die for every American killed in the 911 attacks, that is just fine by me.

That's right, Kevin, thanks. Although I think they actually arrested one of them in Berwyn. It was some suburb of Chicago anyway.

On 2001-10-29 06:16, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
Suppose the President had (1) delcared war, (2) raised taxes dramatically, (2) increased military spending with an emplasis on acquiring massive airlift capacity (3) passed a major tax on gasoline to cut consumption (4) placed a sizable tariff on oil from the Mideast to reduce US dependence on that oil from 25% (where it is now) to less than 10%.

The net result of these actions (except for the increase in airlift, which I agree is badly needed) would have been to wreck the economy even worse than it already is.

American tax rates are too high now .
This includes gas taxes, income taxes, possibly but not certainly payroll taxes (I think the funding for Social Security should be arranged on a different basis), and many other invisible taxes.

The current tax rate on gas is far more than it looks like on the surface. In practical terms, roughly a third of the pump price is taxes in one form or another. We need cheaper energy in America now, not more expensive energy, especially in transport.

I agree we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil. I have in fact been maintaining that since the seventies, when I was in junior high age, and I haven't changed my mind. A consumption tax won't do it. All it would do is put that much more strain on an economy going into the regular down cycle. (I suspect that the current fad of blaming it all on 911 is just an excuse. The economy has been booming for years, and every boom has its inevitable bust.)

By the way, I'm not wealthy. I am in fact one of the government-employee working stiffs you mentioned in another post, and I support tax cuts.

Obviously fighting this is going to take a lot of money. Realistically, doing this right is going to cost some cuts in domestic spending. There's no way around that. Raising taxes will just mess the economy up further, and potentially reduce revenue, not increase it. It might improve revenues in the very short term, but not in the long.

Changing our foreign oil dependence can't be done super-quickly without major economic damage. We should have been working on both domestic production and new R&D for many years now, but we didn't, and there's no quick way to make up the difference. Thus our dismaying and debilitating reliance on Saudi Arabia.

Other than this all the rhetoric remains the same and the US makes the same diplomatic efforts and we look for a post-Taliban government just as we are doing now, but we do NO bombing.

No direct action gives angry mobs little to rail against. When Mr. Tax Cut RAISES taxes, Mr. Oilman takes steps to REDUCE dependence on oil, and then talks about how he and the American people are RESOLVED to see this through (and seems to be making preparations to do just that), he sends a powerful message directly into world capitals everywhere, without firing a shot.

Yes, and the message is "I don't care what happens to our economy, we're going to total war!"

Whereupon the coalition almost certainly disintegrates, and the war escalates in ways we aren't ready for and can't calculate.

My argument in the previous message was intended to show that there are ways that a suitably prepared America could wage a war in Afghanistan and win. We don't HAVE to lose like we did in Vietnam.

But we aren't suitably prepared to win a straightforward war without at least the tacit consent of the surrounding territories, unless we're prepared to fight a vastly larger war than we've faced so far.

No, we don't have to lose, and going one step at a time increases our odds of success.

Its too late to try something like this now, the bombing has already begun. For good or ill our path is now committed to a police action type response.

I believe that's why bin Laden made the 911 attack. He gambled that the American response would be police action rather than war. He believes he has a decent chance to win in a police action.

However a Bosnia-type outcome is still possible (although a long shot), and that's what the President is hoping for, IMO.

My point about Germany was that we would have nukes long before they did and we would use them on Germany, just as we did on Japan. After that Germany would no longer be the player it was.

It's open to question whether we would have used them on Germany, if we hadn't already been in the war. Suppose Germany has won, or at least managed to strangle Britain into partial submission, while gaining an empire on the continent. Russia might or might not still be in the game, depending on the exact nature of the end of the fighting, but it would almost certainly be much, much weaker.

If America has not fought up until this point, it would be difficult to get into a fight, because the Missionaries would be losing their grip on power anyway. (It's hard to picture why they sat it out, but if they had, their time would be slipping by.)

Further, if Hitler were careful not to attack America immediately, it would be almost impossible in terms of domestic politics to launch such an attack anyway from the American side.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-29 20:52 ]</font>

I had to hurry through the posts earlier, so I didn't really respond to Justin properly, did I? No, Justin, I don't know anything you don't about the Taliban having been definitively linked to the attacks of September 11. They do seem to be defending known terrorists, though, so therefore they are part of the problem of terrorism.

Well, Angeli, I started to reply to your last post, quote by quote, but it was all getting too long and pointless, so I deleted it. When I then read my own post, and compare your reactions, it seems that we are not even arguing about the same thoughts. Also, you also dragged in some unnecessarily insulting comments. I could really say something about every single line you wrote, but the parsed-out post would be a total mess.

I don't know how to say it plainer: it is not an OK response to the attacks of September 11 if America does not attempt to attack the terrorists. Despite one person's terrorist being another's freedom fighters, I have no problem calling the attacks "terrorist attacks", therefore the attackers and their organization are "terrorists". Even if some of these terrorists have left Afghanistan, there are still physical bases and other resources there which are part of their infrastructure. It makes sense to destroy all this. And it makes sense to try to find the associated individuals there, even if there is a chance they are not there anymore.

This is but one thing we must do, and we must do many other things as well. Understanding the terrorists is important, and this understanding can be used in military and non-military action. My original point is that "it doesn't matter", "I don't care", or however you want to term it, because ONE of the things to do is to wipe out whatever terrorism support network we can wipe out in Afghanistan, so then let's do it. We need to at least start with this. I don't think my original post was implying anything more than this.

Well, it was also stating that there are two camps talking right past each other: the one is saying what I'm saying, the other is paying more attention to the Big Picture. You are arguing about the Big Picture, which requires Understanding. Granted. I am only talking about small truths, such as: if we respect ourselves as a nation, we will not let the attackers get away with what they have so far gotten away with. I'm game for talking about the Big Picture, but it annoys me when the Big Picture dismisses or marginalizes the small truths.



You jumped all over the bait I left out, but none of that changes what I just stated. Three examples of reactions I sensed you might have:

Because I said "Americans get what they want" in the media, you assumed I myself want the same thing, when in reality I pretty much shun the media just because of all that trash. And yes, I know about how you were a journalist in Prague, and were persecuted, and all the things you saw. Well, I've seen some things too, and in general I never trust ANY newspaper article as getting it right, from the perspective of those who were there making the news.

When I said America is not the military aggressor in origin, I heard millions on the Left rising in a chorus of protest. I don't care. The Gulf War first military strike was by Iraq on Kuwait. Yeah, we need oil. Doesn't mean we would have bombed for it unless Kuwait was attacked.

When I threw out the code words "religion" and "control of information" being motivators of the masses along with poverty, you (predictably, I thought) implied those things are just as strong here as in Afghanistan, when it so obviously is not the case. Just because they are motivators here doesn't mean they are as strong as there.

This post is weak. It's too much work to argue every little clever riposte, and I don't feel like it. I'm going to have dinner now with my family, and leave this damn website for the night.

What empirical evidence can you provide that shows that higher taxes would have the negative effects you claim they would. I presented a figure some time ago that shows a regression of historical GDP growth versus top tax rate that showed a positive. I am not aware of any empirical support for your assertion.

Here's the fig:
http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...e/Tax-GDP2.gif

For example, in 1941, the US economy was in much worse shape than it is today. Fed Tax rates were higher, and were raised still higher. For the next 30 years tax rates remained much higher than today and the economy did much better than it has over the last decade with lower tax rates.

It was only after we decided to fight another police action in Vietnam without raising taxes to pay for it that the economy fell apart.

There is no evidence to support your claim that higher taxes would have any deleterious effect on our economy. It WOULD have a deleterious on the economic well-being of the top tier (like me) would would be paying higher taxes.

As for Germany, where do you get the idea that Germany could defeat Britian AND the Soviet Union? There is no reason to believe this. Germany had the chance to win in 1940 and failed. After 1940 the balance of power would moved steadily against the Germans.

The German high command knew they could never win a protacted war, this was the whole motivation for the Lightning War philosophy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-10-30 14:07 ]</font>

On 2001-10-29 21:01, richt wrote:
I don't know anything you don't about the Taliban having been definitively linked to the attacks of September 11. They do seem to be defending known terrorists, though, so therefore they are part of the problem of terrorism.

Jeez,

Is that all?

We've been bombing Afghanistan for nearly a month now. Hundreds of innocent people have been killed (by the US). BBC recently estimated casualties are running about 10 civilians to each Talib. Thousands more are likely to starve as winter sets in.

And the Taliban seem to be defending known terrorists???

How is this right?


_________________
"One's food should always be sufficient before one seeks to have it fine tasting. One's clothing should always be warm before one tries to make it beautiful. One's dwelling should always be safe before one tries to make it pleasurable."
- [i]Mo Tzu</i

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-30 09:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-30 09:21 ]</font>

On 2001-10-30 09:20, Justin '77 wrote:

On 2001-10-29 21:01, richt wrote:
I don't know anything you don't about the Taliban having been definitively linked to the attacks of September 11. They do seem to be defending known terrorists, though, so therefore they are part of the problem of terrorism.

Jeez,

Is that all?

We've been bombing Afghanistan for nearly a month now. Hundreds of innocent people have been killed (by the US). BBC recently estimated casualties are running about 10 civilians to each Talib. Thousands more are likely to starve as winter sets in.

And the Taliban seem to be defending known terrorists???

How is this right?


_________________
"One's food should always be sufficient before one seeks to have it fine tasting. One's clothing should always be warm before one tries to make it beautiful. One's dwelling should always be safe before one tries to make it pleasurable."
- [i]Mo Tzu</i

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-30 09:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-30 09:21 ]</font>

Didn't say it was right to bomb where civilian casualties could happen.

Didn't mean to stoke your fire, but yeah, "that's all". I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the Taliban is an enemy of the U.S., by their words and actions since Sept. 11, and that they harbor and side with whomever performed the attacks on Sept. 11. So yeah, I think we're justified in going into Afghanistan to eliminate what we can of the terrorist network, since the Taliban chose not to help in that regard.

Oh,yeah, one more thing. It's easy to cry "foul" at every action America is now taking or will take. But it's harder to give useful advice. What's yours? (And not just, "I know what I wouldn't do".) I've been asking this question of lots of people, and they all say "I don't know", in one way or another. So is that the answer? Change our ways to act more terrorist-friendly, then hope that there are no more terrorist attacks?

Well, richt, I'm sorry you found what I said insulting. I get snippy when people start telling me what I think instead of responding to what I say. Which you are still doing and which I find phenomenally insulting myself.

But lets call pax.

Yeah, I see what you mean about Big Picture versus small truths. But I disagree with you about the small truths also. Not because I think we should lie down and let people kill us. Because that would be stupid too, indeed, stupider. But I think we are making a large tactical error. I don't know how large.

Now I'm not an expert on the Islamic world and it might make you feel better to know that I would like to be wrong. I don't think I am wrong. But I don't have all the information. I do have enough information that this all looks the equivalent of bombing Peoria when you're (present tense) being attacked by St. Louis.

But what makes me really uncomfortable with your posts is an insistance that I sense that we should all shut off our brains and fall in lock step behind a massive ground war whether its a bad idea or not, because any dissent means "divided we fall". Millions on the Right are howling this and it freaks me right out. After all, if that's the case, what makes us different from the Taliban? Our SUVs? Why is it patriotic to be a lemming? Why is it treason to say a course of action is stupid when its stupid?

About the media: yeah, I know what you mean. I also know that the policy of the Clinton Administration was to contain these little "teacup wars" and that this involved making sure Americans knew as little as possible about them. I don't know to what extent the collusion on the part of the American media conglomerates was deliberate or coincidental. I do know it effectively kept a lot of people in ignorance of a lot of stuff that has been going on for years.

And I have always disagreed with the prevailing wisdom that Americans just don't care. Most Americans would have cared all along if they knew the ramificatons. It's the job of people like me to explain why they ought to care.

And as far as religion is concerned, I think Christianity is as important in the US as Islam is in the Arab world. You can't really understand a lot of the things we do without understanding that. (this confuses most Europeans, for whom religion doesn't matter that much.)

We also have a large secular counter-tradition that our Constitution is founded upon. But this secular/Christian thing has been a constant source of tension throughout American history. Even when we reject the religious element, we aren't diminishing its importance. We bounce back and forth in extremes, from Literal Interpretation of the Bible to God is Dead. No in betweens. No balance.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2001-10-30 10:48 ]</font>