How big a threat is radical Islam to civilization?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Perhaps a nuke attack on American soil is what is needed. As you have posted before, we don't have the stomach for total war, which is what is required. Perhaps if Al Qaeda set off a nuke in NYC or LA for example, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, we coud then nuke the region to hades and be justfiied / have the will.

This may be FM's most idiotic post ever. Which is saying a lot.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This is the logic that frightens me the most.

At least you quoted my entire post, unlike SU. And my scenario was a response to Mike's "why don't we carpet bomb them" question.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This is the logic that frightens me the most.

What is your opinion of the "all out war" strategy in WWII. Was it wrong to bomb civilians?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

What is your opinion of the "all out war" strategy in WWII. Was it wrong to bomb civilians?

I will respond for him:

1) higher stakes than with Al Qaeda
2) lacked the technology to avoid killing civilians
3) If you have seen "the fog of war" documentary about Robert McNamara, I highly recommend it. He said "the only reason I wasn't prosecuted as a War Criminal after WWII was because we won."

Morality goes to the winner.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

3) If you have seen "the fog of war" documentary about Robert McNamara, I highly recommend it. He said "the only reason I wasn't prosecuted as a War Criminal after WWII was because we won."

Morality goes to the winner.

Are you sure this wasn't a young McNamara rationalizing U.S. atrocities in Vietnam who said this? He's a lot different now, fully regretting everything he did as sec. of war.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't think a nuclear attack, even though I agree it is becoming more likely, will lead to our destruction. It would kill many people and would be a horrible event, but if anything it would galvanize the world against such acts and would result in the ostracism of the perpetrators, IMO. SO it would damage us severley, but its destructive result would be physical only. We would overcome and continue.

I was referring to the destruciton of the values and freedoms we enjoy and our success as a nation. I don't think radical Islam cna do that.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see putting the Patriot Act (my words, not yours) above a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda as the greatest looming threat to American society.

If Bush had declared himself a king, dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court, re-written the Constitution, and commandeered exclusive and autonomous control over the military, then you might have a point.

Short of that, it's just foolhardy to say so.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I will respond for him:

1) higher stakes than with Al Qaeda
2) lacked the technology to avoid killing civilians
3) If you have seen "the fog of war" documentary about Robert McNamara, I highly recommend it. He said "the only reason I wasn't prosecuted as a War Criminal after WWII was because we won."

Morality goes to the winner.

You do what it takes to win. If bombing civilians is the last tactic left in your arsenal, and you believe it will bring about the desired result, then you do it.

Given that we haven't been attacked in so long, it appears that the decision NOT to do so was probably the right one. Moreover, we are trying to win "hearts and minds" in addition to the military war, and killing civilians who might otherwise side with us is not exactly the way to go about doing that.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I will respond for him:

1) higher stakes than with Al Qaeda
2) lacked the technology to avoid killing civilians

I agree with you on #1. On #2, we overestimate to a large degree IMO. We have the technology to MINIMIZE kiling civilians, but I think that has somehow turned into an expectation that there will be NO collateral damage. The technology is not there yet IMO.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

What is your opinion of the "all out war" strategy in WWII. Was it wrong to bomb civilians?

That's not exactly accurate. The only place we really did that was in dresden, which was a totally non-miltary target, and in hiroshima and nagaskai (we tried a few other times in Japan, but wern't too successful). Otherwsie, we targetted military and industry, which obviously included civilians.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see putting the Patriot Act (my words, not yours) above a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda as the greatest looming threat to American society.

If Bush had declared himself a king, dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court, re-written the Constitution, and commandeered exclusive and autonomous control over the military, then you might have a point.

Short of that, it's just foolhardy to say so.

You are talking about a different time frame. My point is that in the long run, there is no real threat from radical islam. Over the long run, the only threat to us is us. In the short term, some group like Al- Qaeda might use a nuclear device, but in MO that will not destroy us or our system.

You do what it takes to win. If bombing civilians is the last tactic left in your arsenal, and you believe it will bring about the desired result, then you do it.

This is, of course, the exact justification relied on by terrorists for car bombs, and women and children bombs, etc. Hopefully we will always try to be more discrimiante than that.

Given that we haven't been attacked in so long, it appears that the decision NOT to do so was probably the right one. Moreover, we are trying to win "hearts and minds" in addition to the military war, and killing civilians who might otherwise side with us is not exactly the way to go about doing that.

It has not been that long. Yours is an american attitude, not a middle eastern attitude.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Perhaps it is because we define America in different ways. To me, America isn't bricks and mortar. A nuclear attack is an unparalleled tragedy, but we can rebuild and survive. A response to that attack that results in the erosion of our civil liberties is what destroys the true meaning of America, for me.

And I don't think we can use the absence of an attack as evidence of anything. We were bombed in the early 90's by al-Qaeda at the WTC. Then they hit the USS Cole several years later (nothing in between). Then they hit the WTC again, along with the Pentagon and the destruction of multiple airplanes a few years after that (with nothing in between). To have used the absence of an attack between any of those attacks as evidence that we were doing something right would have been as foolish then as it is today.

To me, America means much more than simply not having "Bush declar[ing] himself a king, dissolv[ing] Congress and the Supreme Court, re-writ[ing] the Constitution, and commandeer[ing] exclusive and autonomous control over the military." There are thousands of things that we could permit or have happen to us far short of what you have described that would destroy the America I know and love.

Originally Posted by creekster

You are talking about a different time frame. My point is that in the long run, there is no real threat from radical islam. Over the long run, the only threat to us is us. In the short term, some group like Al- Qaeda might use a nuclear device, but in MO that will not destroy us or our system.

I believe America is more than bricks and mortar too. But without property, there's no America to protect.

Comparing the 90's gaps in attacks to today is a total red herring. The US stance toward terrorism is completely different. Likely someday another attack will be successful and the counter will reset, but it's not for lack of a herculean effort to prevent it.

Short of Bush becoming king, etc., there is very little that has happened so far (as it touches civil rights) to justify any more than a Chicken Little view of the impending doom of the America "I know and love."

Originally Posted by creekster

This is, of course, the exact justification relied on by terrorists for car bombs, and women and children bombs, etc. Hopefully we will always try to be more discrimiante than that.

If you cannot see a difference between us and them in this regard, this conversation is bankrupt to begin with.