A liberal with a not so liberal idea.
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:23 pm
I guess I am know on this board as being the board bleeding liberal which I find sort-of
humorous. All of my wives friends think I am a right wing business rape the land
kind-of guy. I want to go real off subject here and make a suggestion that could really
blow my image and put me in the loony bin category.
Fighting terrorism.
It is a new world out there and I really wonder if we (the United States and others) have
really approached this new kind of war fare in a effective manner. Terrorism is real about
small people finding a way to take power. Granted there is a always a main figure head
like Bin Laden, but really he is directing thing in a very loose way. He relies on average
little people on doing all of his dirty work. People who feel empowered to do so. These
people are so under the radar they feel invincible, and why not. We come marching in
guns a blasting and what are we shooting at, Bin Laden's tanks and airports!? We can
take out a country using old style warfare, but we can not get the terrorist. The tools of
the terrorist are small as a human being and or a little explosive, or a vile of this, and the
feeling of inviolability. The resources we need to take out instead of tanks and airports
are the people. Have you ever noticed how all of the suicide bomber/martyr are mostly
the young, the older leaders and generals all have more sense, and really value their lives
a little bit more.
Many year ago congress outlawed US based hit squads. It really seemed unthinkable that
we would have sanctioned murders being committed by our government. I am though
beginning to have serious doubts about that policy and wonder if that approach would not
be a more efficient way to win this type of warfare. Do you give up some of your moral
fabric to win a war. Is this method with all of it failing better than mass bombing killing
more innocents than terrorist worst morally. Would this type of warfare inflict the same
type of terror and take away the invincibility the terrors are used to. It has been proven
by history when warfare has been taken to a personal level the individuals tend to change
there tune real quick.
I don't know how I would eventually fall if this issue came up but I can tell you which
way I am leaning. I really do not think what we are doing in the long run will be more
than a speed bump in the terrorist agenda.
humorous. All of my wives friends think I am a right wing business rape the land
kind-of guy. I want to go real off subject here and make a suggestion that could really
blow my image and put me in the loony bin category.
Fighting terrorism.
It is a new world out there and I really wonder if we (the United States and others) have
really approached this new kind of war fare in a effective manner. Terrorism is real about
small people finding a way to take power. Granted there is a always a main figure head
like Bin Laden, but really he is directing thing in a very loose way. He relies on average
little people on doing all of his dirty work. People who feel empowered to do so. These
people are so under the radar they feel invincible, and why not. We come marching in
guns a blasting and what are we shooting at, Bin Laden's tanks and airports!? We can
take out a country using old style warfare, but we can not get the terrorist. The tools of
the terrorist are small as a human being and or a little explosive, or a vile of this, and the
feeling of inviolability. The resources we need to take out instead of tanks and airports
are the people. Have you ever noticed how all of the suicide bomber/martyr are mostly
the young, the older leaders and generals all have more sense, and really value their lives
a little bit more.
Many year ago congress outlawed US based hit squads. It really seemed unthinkable that
we would have sanctioned murders being committed by our government. I am though
beginning to have serious doubts about that policy and wonder if that approach would not
be a more efficient way to win this type of warfare. Do you give up some of your moral
fabric to win a war. Is this method with all of it failing better than mass bombing killing
more innocents than terrorist worst morally. Would this type of warfare inflict the same
type of terror and take away the invincibility the terrors are used to. It has been proven
by history when warfare has been taken to a personal level the individuals tend to change
there tune real quick.
I don't know how I would eventually fall if this issue came up but I can tell you which
way I am leaning. I really do not think what we are doing in the long run will be more
than a speed bump in the terrorist agenda.