Military perspective on war vs. terrorism - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2005, 09:52 AM
cboy's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: Finished
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Atwater, CA
Age: 69
Posts: 3,918
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Military perspective on war vs. terrorism

This is interesting in light of our lounge discussion a couple weeks back about the perspective of military leaders on how to fight the war on terror vs. the perspective of politicians and think tank professor types. This is from about as high up in the military ranks as you can get:

"Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded."

Here is the link to the story from the N.Y. Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/po...strategy.html? (Note: you might have to do a free registration to see the story.)

    Advertisement
__________________
Always learning...and sharing what I've learned. The Scratch-Built Hot Rod.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2005, 01:24 PM
USA1's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 177
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here is something that was forwarded to me this a.m. along those lines.
> The following was written by someone unknown to me. Whoever forwarded it, deleted the sender's (author's?) name -- it's unfortunate he/she will not be getting credit for the insights. I think you'll agree, after reading it, that the author could -- maybe should -- be a major contributor to our Foreign Policy thinking.
>
> Please read it. You may not agree with the conclusions drawn, but the premise is too real. Many of the facts speak for themselves.
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII! ).
>
> The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
>
> First, let's examine a few basics:
>
> 1. When did the threat to us start?
>
> Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
> Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
> Bei rut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
> Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
> Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
> Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Kh! obar Towers Military complex 1996;
> Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
> Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
> Pentagon 2001.
>
> (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
>
> 2. Why were we attacked?
>
> Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
>
> 3. Who were the attackers?
>
> In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
>
> 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
>
> 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
>
> Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian pop ulation of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-ahtm).
>
> Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
>
> Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is: that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
>
> 6. So who are we at war with?
>
> There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
>
> So with that background, now to the two major questions:
>
> 1. Can we lose this war?
>
> 2. What does losing really mean?
>
> If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
>
> We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question: What does losing mean?
>
> It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
>
> We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
>
> We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.
>
> They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
>
> The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
>
> If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
>
> If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
>
> The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost.
> We'd better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
>
> Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
>
> So, how can we lose the war?
>
> Again, the answer is simple.. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
>
> Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
>
> President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
>
> Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
>
> And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
>
> Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
>
> No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
>
> Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
>
> Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
>
> We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners o f war, by a small group of our military police.
>
> These are the type of prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
>
> And just a few years ago these same type of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
>
> And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, showing the beheading of American prisoners that they held.
>
> Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
>
> Can this be for real?
>
> The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense .
>
> If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
>
> To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.
>
> Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
> Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
>
> Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels!
> That translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
>
> We are the last bastion of defense.
>
> We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
>
> We can't!
>
> If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.
>
> And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone (let alone everyone), equal status or any status for women---or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
>
> This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
>
> If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
>
> Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
>
> And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they a re in power.
>
> They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
>
> I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
>
> After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
>
> Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal --- and that includes the politicians and media of our country and the free world---Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.
>
> There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
>
> GOD BLESS THE USA & OUR WARRIORS IN HARMS WAY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2005, 02:46 PM
Jon's Avatar
Jon Jon is offline
Hotrodders.com Administrator
 
Last wiki edit: Removing stuck fasteners Last photo:
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Colorado
Age: 37
Posts: 3,206
Wiki Edits: 7314

Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
USA1 -- no need to cut-and-paste large amounts of text onto the board. Please edit your post to provide a summary or excerpt of the resource, plus a link, as cboy has done. This will help keep discussions more readable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Hotrodders' Lounge posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wake Up!!!! akm Off-Topic 83 04-26-2009 08:42 AM
Moderators NXS Hotrodders Site Suggestions and Help 44 07-11-2005 09:57 PM
War strategy cboy Hotrodders' Lounge 34 06-05-2005 01:49 AM
legalization of marijuana 40fordtruck_son Hotrodders' Lounge 141 10-07-2004 07:00 PM
maltese cross 38 special Hotrodders' Lounge 28 06-24-2003 12:55 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.