Democrats are at Big Oil again.......they brought out the big guns for this...

[OrangeEmpire]

FOXNews.com - Al Qaeda Publication Calls on Jihadists to Attack Oil Facilities That Supply U.S. - Middle East Map | News | Crisis

NEW YORK — An article published last week in a slick Al Qaeda online magazine calls on jihadists in the Arabian Peninsula to follow a directive from Usama bin Laden and attack "oil interests that provide the Crusaders with oil."

I wonder if he will run for president?

 

[CSpindizzy]

slick online magazine....wonder if they're taking subscriptions and going door to door. Good thing Bush's whole "take the war to them" is working. These guys have a better propaganda system and internet campaign than Rove could have come up with.

 

[MG1968]

These guys have a better propaganda system and internet campaign than Rove could have come up with.

that's because large segments of the US news media and the opposition party will wring their hands over stress positions and human pyramids, yet at the same time they will wax reflective and ponder how it's the US's fault when Nicholas Berg is beheaded.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Maybe if we actually went after those repsonsible for 9/11 instead of taking a field trip to Iraq, we wouldn't have to deal with a lot of this. Sending in 13 times more troops to go after Saddam rather than the masterminds behind 9/11 and the world's worst terrorist group goes far for allowing this type of behavior to enter the modern age of information.

 

[J.Quest]

What do you do when the countries harboring or suspected of harboring the masterminds of 911 won't allow you to assert yourself and blow up targets of opportunity at will (and why would they)? Brute force certainly isn't working in this war. New plan...become terrorists.

 

[allvol123]

Obviously we haven't used brute force. If you are using brute force you don't ask for permission.

 

[J.Quest]

Of course brute force tactics and anything that resembles the wars of the past will fail. Our current policy makers don't seem to to be students of history or they would know this. As Cspin outlined in another thread the failures of other countries with vested interests in defeating terrorism also did not realize this. In order to defeat terrorism it is imperative that we win over the societies they imbed themselves in. By doing so law and justice will work. Terrorist grow stronger and feed on the retaliation of states for their terrorist acts. When a state body like the US retaliates against terrorism with military force that kills civilians and destroys infrastructure, the terrorists win for the moment b/c new terrorist are created from families of those killed. I read that the terrorists actually shot themselves in the foot by decapitating Nick Berg at the time that the US was battling with Abu Garib photos...that event took some focus off of the US and left a bitter taste for terrorists who would commit the atrocity of decapitation. To this point, it is imperative that we run a squeeky-clean campaign against terrorism and win the support of everyone possible. You do that by helping to create jobs, repair infrastructure, etc...something we are doing in Iraq, already. No one actually wants terrorism. For the most part folks just want to live in peace and be allowed to pursue their dreams. Terrorism is defeated when everyone gets on the same page and terrorists no longer have a place to hide.

But...it is hard to stomach all that's going on and not want to make a glass parking lot out of the mid-east.

 

[allvol123]

How did brute force fail in WW2?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Tell me what force of any kind is being used to track down Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Hindu Kush? Basically we've played footsie with Musharaf and have allowed the Taliban to resurge in Afgahnistan. Now Bush is prepping to ask for more troops there. Maybe instead of diverting resources to go after Saddam, clearly lost path that it was, we should have hit the heart of this whole nest and started there. In the meantime, we have gotten bogged down in nationbuilding and civil war, while the heart of the original matter has gotten worse.

 

[J.Quest]

How did brute force fail in WW2?

It didn't b/c we bombed Japan and there was no media there to report on all of the civilians who got vaporized.

Fast forward to today...terrorism is rooted in many societies and states, but being politically correct somehow outweighs destroying terrorists. Brute force will work if we are talking about bombing a country or getting involved in traditional warfare. It will not work when dealing with assymetrical warfare where these groups are not associated with a state...and there are countless examples that support this in recent history.

 

[allvol123]

It didn't b/c we bombed Japan and there was no media there to report on all of the civilians who got vaporized.

Fast forward to today...terrorism is rooted in many societies and states, but being politically correct somehow outweighs destroying terrorists. Brute force will work if we are talking about bombing a country or getting involved in traditional warfare. It will not work when dealing with assymetrical warfare where these groups are not associated with a state...and there are countless examples that support this in recent history.

Brute force will work. Whether people have the stomach for it or not, is another issue.

You have a certain segment of people that are necessarily terrorists, but they are more than ok to keep their mouths shut and let the terrorists hide near them. When they understand that punishment is coming for this behavior, they are not as likely to keep their mouths shut and just be silent bystanders. But as of now the US has not scared anyone into anything.

 

[J.Quest]

Brute force will work. Whether people have the stomach for it or not, is another issue.

You have a certain segment of people that are necessarily terrorists, but they are more than ok to keep their mouths shut and let the terrorists hide near them. When they understand that punishment is coming for this behavior, they are not as likely to keep their mouths shut and just be silent bystanders. But as of now the US has not scared anyone into anything.

So what you are saying is "go big or go home"? What happened to the Soviet effort in trying to stamp them out in afghanistan from '79-'89??? In the days of shrinking borders and increasing technology, we are moving in the direction of perpetual world war. Don't get me wrong...I don't despise war, but I despise the lack of a war plan.

 

[allvol123]

So what you are saying is "go big or go home"? What happened to the Soviet effort in trying to stamp them out in afghanistan from '79-'89??? In the days of shrinking borders and increasing technology, we are moving in the direction of perpetual world war. Don't get me wrong...I don't despise war, but I despise the lack of a war plan.

Pretty much yes, go big or go home. We are sending 20,000 more troops over, but to be honest we don't need half the troops that are there now to do what really needs to be done. Soviets, 79-89, if you spent 10 years on it, you did not go big or go home in my opinion. But I really don't know anything about how the Soviets handled it, strategy wise.

Certainly agree with your last sentence.