It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wanna win?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Vicious Circle of Violence

Apparently even the Gay Bomb does not Help in this Thread.

Have you, die hard warmonger fanatics, ever heard of Vicious Circle of Violence?

Once you start this Circle, it's very hard to stop.

Violence provokes counter-violence and a vicious cycle escalates. Our world system is now threatened and the United States, as the only global superpower, plays a leading role -- for better or for worse. The war in Iraq epitomizes and dramatizes this struggle. Countervailing forces contend: the terrorism of insurgents is matched with counter-terrorism of military strikes. Parallels can be found in other countries, especially in Palestine. The role of the United States is especially frightening to peoples around the world where fear and violence replace peace adn reconciliation. To reverse this vicious cycle, non-violent strategies are required. A discourse community of caring scholars and activists, taking advantage of scattered resources around the world, will enhance the prospects for justice and peace, pointing the way to counter terrrorism.

Vicious circle: The dynamics of occupation and resistance in Iraq

Breaking the Vicious Circle of Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia

Report: US Locked in 'Vicious Circle' in Iraq

Chechnya: A Vicious Circle

Judging by this Thread we are not even CLOSE to be ready to Eliminate this Circle, that was started by the ones, who really Profit from it. And that's not You and Me, who are having this debate. Not Your Friends, that are Fighting somebody elses War in Iraq. We are the small People - we are the ones who PAY the Price of The Man and his Greedy Goals and Priorities. He does not care for You and Me - but only for the Share on the Stock Market; and Behold! Today shares of Oil have reached the Record Peak of 66.6$! YEEEEEHAAAW!!! Who's going to pay Higher Price for Gasoline, when he goes to the Gas Station? You? Me? And who's gonna PROFIT from this HIGH Oil Price? You? Me? Tell me, OH Great Warmongers, how many Stocks of Oil Companies do you own, so you can make alot of money today, selling them? So, again, WE are paying the Price so that The Man can get Richer Again. We are paying with Money, Sweat, Tears and in the end Blood. What He does is sit in his Office and Count the Profit and not the Dead and the Casualties that have Fallen for this "Cause" of a Better Tomorrow. Because that's all about Ladies & Gentleman: About OUR CHILDREN, and what kind of World we Will leave them to Live in. Full of Fear, Hatred, Terror and Suffering?

STOP THE CIRCLE OF VIOLENCE, BEFORE IT STOPS YOU!!!





posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
You got your opinion and I got mine...the difference is Im right and your wrong. Lessons learned on the streets are worth more than 20 degrees in an Ivy league university studing "international relations"


I'm flattered that you think that I got my education in an Ivy League school, but I didn't. I got it in the USMC, and from some of the related reading I've done. One of the more influential works in the opinion I've given (which is dead right, no matter what some ignorant wanna be street fighter says) was written by Marine Commandant Charles Krulak. "Warfighting" is a brilliant and concise primer on the manuever warfare doctrine which makes the USMC so incredibly effective. It says you and your streetfighter junk are wrong and emphasizes "hitting them where they aren't" not for attrition, but to disable the enemy force. This is the simple and effective key to victory, even for forces which have the deck stacked against them.

Firepower and ruthlessness are secondary to mobility and battlefield awareness. It is impractical and sometimes impossible to kill everyone, but it is entirely plausible and extremely effective to eliminate the key elements which distinguish an army from just a bunch of guys with guns. You destroy logistics, communication, and command structure, and all that is left of the enemy is a bunch of morons with half-empty magazines and no plan of attack.

Yep, that'd be a knockdown my friend. So do I go to a neutral corner and wait for the ref's instructions, or do I kick you while you're down? You're the toughguy, so you tell me.


[edit on 13-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Is that red haired bud your smoking?



I wish.. I think I will sit back enjoy a puff and watch these idiots contemplate the total annihilation of the human species......

I think that a few people in this thread did suffer from lack of love growing up.

I guess all the work by anti war activists in the 60's and 70's was pretty much in vain as the next generation seem so angry and full of hate and just want to go out find an enemy and destroy it...is it boredom? lack of direction? lack of faith in the future? lack of thought of the future?

Or just plain violent. You people advocating war and blowing up mosques and schools and bombing arabs are terrorists yourselves and are actively inciting violence and reaction.

have you forgotten peace have you forgotten the anti nuke protests? or are you all that brainwashed that you don't remember the mistakes of the past in order to learn listen and grow as a species.

For every violent threat you take mankind back two giant leaps.





[edit on 13-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet


Maybe the savages should have thought about that before they pissed us off.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
Maybe the savages should have thought about that before they pissed us off.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by C0le]


And that's precisely what "the savages" are saying, too.

Such thinking applies to both sides, apparently.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You destroy logistics, communication, and command structure, and all that is left of the enemy is a bunch of morons with half-empty magazines and no plan of attack.


Listen Jarhead, I was a soldier also as a 19E tanker in the Army and I think we're close to being on the same page, but keep misreading one another.

Your point mentioned above is Exactly what Im talking about in regards to item #4 on my list. Hit the countries that are providing logistical support to the terrorists. Somehow, America has to change the rules of this game....this "tit-for-tat" engagement favors them, because the terrorists are almost always (1) step ahead of Intell.

You win by making them re-act to your attacks instead of you re-acting to theirs. My way would hit their economies...let the residents of Tehran see what its like to have no power.....no sewage treatment plants. Let the Royal Saudi Family members who are financing terrorists fear for their lives for once.

They are good at dishing it out violence, lets return the favor.


Maximu§

pS: This strategy forces them to go after their own terrorists or face more air strikes on their economic intrests.


[edit on 093131p://666 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
which country supporting terrorism?

1) Iran has no link with "Al Qaeda". Iran is a chiite country and Al Qaeda is not.

2) Syria has no proven links with terrorism in Iraq and with Al Qaeda.

3) Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism and attacking them would destroy us as well (oil...)

.....

Which country do you wanna attack tough boy?



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludo182
which country supporting terrorism?

1) Iran has no link with "Al Qaeda". Iran is a chiite country and Al Qaeda is not.

2) Syria has no proven links with terrorism in Iraq and with Al Qaeda.

3) Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism and attacking them would destroy us as well (oil...).....

Which country do you wanna attack tough boy?



All (3) listed above. Each of those countries are sponsors of terrorism. The Saudis have not changed one bit, they still finance radical Islamic groups because we have not forced them to stop. Start killing the family memebrs who have proven terror ties and watch how fast they change.

We know who they are and where they live......so why not take the war to them?

Maximu§



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Well we are getting a little closer to the same page, but we're reading the text of it differently. While your presentation of your rationale here is infinitely more sensible than the street fighter analogy, I still beg to differ at least slightly.


Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Your point mentioned above is Exactly what Im talking about in regards to item #4 on my list. Hit the countries that are providing logistical support to the terrorists.


While invading them would certainly be my call in a perfect world, we unforunately are not living in a perfect world. The future of our reserve forces is already in jeopardy and our political situation here at home is coming apart at the seems. I think the situation at this point demands more subtle means to the same end. My concern is that if we are too heavy handed we could be facing an oil embargo which would necessitate war with at least 4 middle eastern powers on a time table not of our choosing, which could be very risky.

Personally, I wouldn't have taken the CIA out behind the woodshed after 9/11. I would have given them a much needed shot in the arm. Before we ever went into Iraq we should have had the CIA up to their neck in Iran's democracy movement. They infiltrate the terrorist groups and feed us info on border crossings and weapons shipments, and in return we help them organize against the Mullahs.

Syria would be even simpler. Good old carrot and stick. The carrot- if they deploy their military on the Iraqi border and shut it down, we'll twist Israel's arm and force them out of Golan Heights, setting a remarkable example for Arabs cooperating with America and consequently gaining ground in their disputes with Israel.
The stick: IF they fail, then we go with your plan, and make SF incursions into Damascus to raid Hizbollah offices and other terrorist organizations.

Basically that's out of your playbook and I trust you'll like the idea, the difference is that we have to be subtle, low key, and offer them an out. When you leave somebody an option for avoiding a fight and still get something they want, they'll take it. If you just tell them that resistance is futile, they'll just fight more desperately.

Saudi is far and away the trickiest one. They've got the oil, the international community just might be willing to fight for them, and above all, if we invade them every moderate government in the region is going to fall. The last thing we need is Pakistani citizens trying to topple Musharaff because they want to use the bomb to liberate Islam's holiest sites.
Frankly the answer to the Saudi border is simply to police the hell out of it and kill everything that tries to cross. Taking the fight over the Saudi border is not practical for the time being, although I do think we should have them on our hitlist for a day when we aren't so busy or so hard up for troops.


My way would hit their economies...let the residents of Tehran see what its like to have no power.....no sewage treatment plants. Let the Royal Saudi Family members who are financing terrorists fear for their lives for once.


I really don't think that's going to work. If anything it will rally people who aren't too fond of their governments to the government's side. I think building the economies of moderates, especially Iraq, and taking every chance we can to offer our enemies a chance to be our friends is the answer. We need to divide the radical rulers from the people and have the CIA ready to exploit this for recruitment and later coups.


As I said when I began posting in this thread, it's a bit late. You don't get two chances to nip a problem in the bud, and at this point I'm not sure the insurgency in Iraq can be contained without starting a far larger war (ie: by following your plan) but I'm not sure that's acceptable economically or strategically, especially since it'll put a dove in the whitehouse in 2008 and result in us pulling out with the job unfinished.

If I had to take over this gaggle at the state that it's currently in though, and had to forget about what was done wrong to begin with, I'd be thinking really hard about opening up contracts and other economic incentives to draw troops from any possible ally as well as upping our own troop strength. I'd use those troops to secure centers of targeted economic development, and I'd bribe the Syrians into shutting down their border per my idea above. I'd put the CIA into overdrive as quickly as possible, and I'd be working in these ways to win the loyalty of the locals and thus obtain better intelligence which could be used to shut down the flow of arms and terrorists into Iraq.
I'd heavily shy away from attacking anyone who could possibly be bribed instead. As Sun Tsu wrote, wars are won in the temples. Win the favor of the powers that be (the local people in this case) win the battle.
In short- what we really need right now is for the state department, CIA and SOCOM to rise to the occasion.

All of this isn't exactly up my alley to be honest. My first impulse with any problem is to pick up the largest blunt object available and bash the problem as hard as possible. Unfortunately the problem has grown so extensive now that doing things that way could mean war with Syria, Egypt, Saudi, and Iran. With Egypt and Saudi against us, which would happen if we really cracked down on the source of terrorism, there'd be no reinforcing Iraq quickly enough. We'd be looking at several thousand casualties in the very very best scenario, and about 100,000 in the very very worst scenario. And all the while we'd be under an economic crisis caused by the sudden halt to the oil flow.

With all due respect to General Eisenhower, this is one problem we do not want to enlarge in order to solve.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

Originally posted by ludo182
which country supporting terrorism?

1) Iran has no link with "Al Qaeda". Iran is a chiite country and Al Qaeda is not.

2) Syria has no proven links with terrorism in Iraq and with Al Qaeda.

3) Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism and attacking them would destroy us as well (oil...).....

Which country do you wanna attack tough boy?



All (3) listed above. Each of those countries are sponsors of terrorism. The Saudis have not changed one bit, they still finance radical Islamic groups because we have not forced them to stop. Start killing the family memebrs who have proven terror ties and watch how fast they change.

We know who they are and where they live......so why not take the war to them?

Maximu§


the problem is more complicated than what you claim.
If you say that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism that's false. It's not a state supporting terrorism but some individuals, you're right some of them are princes... but some are religious people as well who "launch" fatwas , which gives terrorists a religious "go-ahead" .

Concerning the princes of the Saoud family, we have no proofs since the way to finance terrorism is to finance islamic charity organisations which unofficialy give money to some terrorists.

The Saoud family made a pact with the religious people decades ago, the Saoud family would have the power and the religious people would see the Chaaria as the sole source of law. If the Saoud family has a too aggresive stance towards the religious people then the pact is broken and they lose power. So you see than the situation is delicate for the saoud family, on the one hand they must fight homegrown terrorists who strike within Saudi Arabia but on the other hand they cannot be repressive enough with the terrorists' backers : some religious people



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Vagabond, I read your post twice and most of it makes good sense. Thats why I posted this thread...to toss some ideas out here and see what alternates ideas pop up while ignoring the personal attacks.

I agree the CIA shoulda been taken out "behind the woodshed" after 9/11. When I watched the ex-CIA director George Tenet announce his retirement while wearing a pink shirt and crying like a girl on national TV...it made me cringe.

Anyhow, the rules of the game must change.....I don't want to wait for a second 9/11 before we start going after the sponsers I mentioned.

Maximu§



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Of course what everyone is overlooking is how banking reform, although next to impossible because the banks fund the vicious cycle of war and have been doing so for centuries, is the way to win the contrived Hegalian so called "war on terrorim." The latter is the also incomplete sequel to the previous set of incomplete ideologies and partisanships used to paint a cover over senseless conflict. Think of war as a massive scale of the same pattern as suicides over the most foolish pretexts, conquer that also.

Hey the money industry backs everything with guns, the guns part is no paper tiger. Don't forget to read War Is a Racket. Of course bankers are so stupid they don't realize that reforming their death industry angle would be immensely profitable for everyone including themselves. What they have to do is urban renewal without killing people, however their knowledge is incomplete so they resort to their own time tested profit formulae which are totally obsolete and invalid. The problem is a closed system and vicious cycle as stated above, but it has always required funny money backed by guns. The innovation is to follow the swiss model for self defense everywhere.

All terrorism is basically economic, while the MSM tells you it is the feeble responses to that economic terrorism that forment the problem.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Hey the money industry backs everything with guns, the guns part is no paper tiger. Don't forget to read War Is a Racket. Of course bankers are so stupid they don't realize that reforming their death industry angle would be immensely profitable for everyone including themselves.

I have mentioned General Smedley D. Butler several times in several other threads, and most of these times, there was really no response to this General and his Actions in the name of "Liberty". I didn't have the Chance to read the Book - I will in the Future.



[edit on 13/8/05 by Souljah]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

You are being duped into a war so easily that I can only conclude that in spite of your protests to the contrary you are secretly attracted to war.

Ask yourself. . . Do you find war interesting? Do you like military hardware? Do you feel excited by the latest reports from the war?

If so then you had better get therapy !!

Give up supporting terrorism please Sir.


Yeah Yeah Yeah, yawn

You peacenicks wouldnt know danger if it bit you. You should be thankful that there are those willing to fight for what is right instead of being a tulipwalker.


1. tulipwalker
A single grouping of leftist, liberal, communist, pinko, enviro-nazi tree hugging, anti-American peace nicks. Those tulipwalkers are at it again, protesting the war, even at the cost of more hatred, putting American lives at greater risk.

Forevermore, when I think of this, I will think of you Stewart, (Either that or I will picture Stewart on MADTV).





Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

You are a terrorist and have no right to advocate Nuclear War on this planet.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Please change your attitude towards a more peaceful solution.


NO you should be ashamed of yourself, wars come and go and its the ones that cause their fellow man more grief by sympathizing with the enemy cause that make me sick.


YOU should be ashamed Stewart!



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

You peacenicks wouldnt know danger if it bit you. You should be thankful that there are those willing to fight for what is right instead of being a tulipwalker.


1. tulipwalker
A single grouping of leftist, liberal, communist, pinko, enviro-nazi tree hugging, anti-American peace nicks. Those tulipwalkers are at it again, protesting the war, even at the cost of more hatred, putting American lives at greater risk.




How interesting, but all these people whose incomplete ideologies simply divide and conquer, are sponsored by the Rockefellers and big banks to overspecialize and blind people.

Yes "wars come and go," but what is their "intelligent design?" Obviously the solution to the problem is banking reform which should please the hearts of any actual conservative. Hey read Goldwater's With no apologies. He tells you straight about the CFR, the Trilateral Commision, and the bankers. Is he a "tulipwalker?" Is Goldwater telling the truth about the causes of war, and is he just a "peacenik?"

I would have voted for Barry Goldwater if I was old enough, and my own words to my classmates are haunting at that early time:"Johnson will just drag it out on the Viet Nam war, Barry will win it and bring our troops home." That war was dragged out by "friendly fire," by the CIA and others, and for what purpose but big money? The same is happening today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blind partisanship, overspecialization, and name calling are only symptoms of the divide and conquer rhetoric that your beloved "etite," uses to distract people from the real issues. It is about money backed by guns, not about guns and patriotism. It is about an elite with the comprehensive IQ of a turnip as self evident.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Are you a neoconservative? You think that you are, but don't know for sure? Take this quiz to find out.

Neocon Quiz

Suggested Video:

Hijacking Catastrophe

[edit on 13/8/05 by Souljah]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


Yeah Yeah Yeah, yawn

You peacenicks wouldnt know danger if it bit you. You should be thankful that there are those willing to fight for what is right instead of being a tulipwalker.


1. tulipwalker
A single grouping of leftist, liberal, communist, pinko, enviro-nazi tree hugging, anti-American peace nicks. Those tulipwalkers are at it again, protesting the war, even at the cost of more hatred, putting American lives at greater risk.


Ed, you know God made Tulips and trees. Without trees you and your family would be dead, so hug one when you see it next.

By the way Ed, you should change the bird in your profile to this:-


If you want to win the war its this easy:-
improve foriegn policy and trade laws

It should be fought with economics not bombs.


Most intelligent people here can see the BIGGER danger behind the fabicated danger.

Also we can see this nasty equation:-
American Neo cons who say fighting and dieing for your Country is the most patriotic thing an American can do, your a hero. If your against the war your against America.

+

Islamic nutters who say Dieing for your religion is means Allah will give you the highest blessing, your a Martyr. If your not a Muslim your a disbeliever/infedial.

= All of us in mind Prision which orbits the sun.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Youll see the danger all right when an arab extremist has a rusty knife to your throat.

The sollution


[edit on 13-8-2005 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
you want a synonym of war : failure

as Souljah said violence breeds violence, the solution is not to respond to violence and fanatism by violence and another type of fanatism. We must defend ourselves but not attack. Let me give you an example of possible solution on the Iranian issue :

it will be impossible to prevent Iran to get atomic weapons by diplomatic means. They have proven that even good a membership to the WTO won't stopped them from continuing their nuclear activities.
Once they get the "bomb" they will use it as a disuasive weapon and won't even attack Israel because of the Israeloi retaliations.

We must tackle this issue differently and prepare ourselves : yes the Iranians will get the "bomb". We should start to act like real democracies (no more Iraq war style intervention, no more Abu graib torture cases,...), show the world how free the western people is, how good life is in the West ans the mollah regime will fall without any foreign intervention, the Iranians youth will kick them out. The point is to have a democratic Iran with the bomb and not an undemocratic and radical Iran with the bomb.



and Cole who do you think you are, some kind of soldier? In Europe we have experienced war on our soil and we have been taught by history that war should always be the very very very.... very last resort

[edit on 13-8-2005 by ludo182]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
You have voted ludo182 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Hey we all need to let off a little hot air once in awhile, and we do this generally about things we don't understand. I can get pissed off at the ATM when it's broke, but that don't mean I'm going to fix it on the spot, or know how to fix it for that matter.

There are people that are paid to fix ATM's, and trained to do so. Many of you have no clue why things are they way they are in Iraq and policy against Islam. You do need to know however, that men and women, Generals, and think tanks, are busting their arse's to keep America safe. Fighting the Jihad war has just begun and it takes a while to understand how to effectively do it. One thing is for sure mistakes will be made. Murphy is a monkey that's on everyone's back and American's are easily exploited by propaganda because we are an open society. The DIA and CIA did learn from Vietnam, and that's how not to let foreign countries exploit our citizens.

As already stated Iraq has already been won. The hard reality is the war on Jihad will take generations.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join