London, Terror, and Leadership

[Killfile]

Since no one has started a thread on the London bombings, I thought I'd toss one up. As a good jumping off point, a friend of mine made the following quip --

After 9-11 George Bush was whisked to an "undisclosed location" while Dick more or less ran the country. After London was hit, Blair left the heavily guarded G8 summit and went TO London.

Just a curious observation.

On another note -- what does this mean for the whole "War on Terror." As a historian, I can attest to the role of terror as a military tactic, often used by military forces that lack the men and material to engage the enemy in a frontal assault. (Terror tactics were used effectively by Washington and the Continental Army against the British). As such, it would seem unlikely that a war on terror will produce any results -- any more than a war on flanking or a war on air power.

Are we really just creating more terrorists and providing them the best training ground in the world (Iraq), or are we actually accomplishing something out there in the desert?

[MrFelony]

I think a huge thing the colonies had in its favor were people who held to their ideals of a land of freedom, equality, and democracy. If it wasnt for George washington, the colonies might have landed back into a monarchy, seeing as how they offered washington the role of king/ruler but he declined to serve as president .

[Skullkracker]

Killfile really came up with a good one.

I was listening to the news today, and it was said that the Londoners really keep their calm, and wanna show that they're not afraid, and ready to kick ass...although I wonder how if they would have been as shocked as Americans if a national symbol like Big Ben would have been fucked up...with more massive casualties.

As for the war on terror: the world is likely to end sooner.

[Buzkashi]

I love history too killfile, its my fav subject. Been it for a while. However im kind of a conspiracy theorist myself. Though i believe these theories i have to be truths. Anyways, i was wonderin what you can do with a history major, besides teaching?

[Necromancer]

There will always be bad guys, there will always be good guys and there will always be me (As long as I live and care).

The only hope for the world is to kill all humans 'cause even when they are "good" they are destroying things they are not supposed to.

[halfnhalf]

There will always be bad guys, there will always be good guys and there will always be me (As long as I live and care).

History is not made up of good or bad. Good and bad is all propaganda talk. There is no good or bad, its all about what you believe in. In the US we think that any terrorist is a bad person, but think of of just the same. It not good or evil that moves people to just movements, its ideals.



Ideals, thats all you need to know about history.

[psi29a]

Good and Evil do not exist, people fight because for ideas and ideals.

Example: People believe that there is a Good and Evil and thus lump people as Evil so that can be removed. This is an Ideal, some people can blindly follow the Ideal without thinking it through.

Why are terrorist Evil or Bad? (Terrorists crashed a plan into the Twin Towers, Terrorists had their way at the Bosten Tea Party, and Terrorists had their way with the English).

Is what President Bush is doing Good or Evil? It is totally subjective, and needs to objectively studied and thought about. It isn't as simple as saying... it's evil!

[Malvado]

Weeds are evil and they are natural....

Well no i don't think a war on terrorism is going to do anything except give us a lower population count. About bush moving away after the attack. Why shouldn't he? He is a man and a man of even semi-importantence cares for their own safety and what would we do with a dead leader(even if i don't like him)? Well use the vice-president that I don't like either is the obvious answer.

[Ayanami]

Well, I think the war on terror is bull shit IMO. A lot more care should have been taken into this whole mess. We are only now creating more anti American hatred and creating more terrorists.

[MrFelony]

people will do a lot more out of true love than true fear...at least i like to think so

[psi29a]

people will do a lot more out of true love than true fear...at least i like to think so

Very altruistic of you MrFelony. Who would have thought.

Fear is a powerful motivator. However, I think America as a whole has become numb to it as UK is portraying simply because the numbers don't add up. You are more likely to be hit by lightning or a plane crash on you than you are to be killed by a terrorist.

Terrorist primary function is to sow fear to get their secondary objective more lime-light. Some New Yorkers that have developed a "If this is the day I die, so be it. I still have to goto work and live my life." <-- Heard that on NPR.

[MrFelony]

I think its working, people aren't seeing much change over in afghanistan and Iraq, every day people are supporting the war, every day Bush's popularity drops a little bit more. Im not saying whether or not i support this (too appathetic these days though i did promise Peace-Action some money in the future ), just that i dont see our next president being as gungho about this as Bush, at least he has 2 1/2 more years to finish up (:?).

heh ya im more than the Berserk Stupid theories thread though i dont like to show that side of me

[Devil_Dante]

I wonder what makes those terrorists do such actions. they probably blame us of all the suffering they had been through. And yes, perhaps we are a bit responsible too. Although their own government is the one who should take the blame. (I guess :s)

So I guess we see them as "Evil" and they us as "Evil". So in the end it is all about ideals. (thanks to halfnhalf)

And their actions only lead to more suffering and agony in the world. Some say this will cause WW3.
Stupid theory? remember that history always repeats itself.

btw, there will always be terrorists in the world. Earth never knew a time when there was total peace in the world.

[halfnhalf]

Fear is a powerful motivator. However, I think America as a whole has become numb to it as UK is portraying simply because the numbers don't add up. You are more likely to be hit by lightning or a plane crash on you than you are to be killed by a terrorist.

Terrorist primary function is to sow fear to get their secondary objective more lime-light. Some New Yorkers that have developed a "If this is the day I die, so be it. I still have to goto work and live my life." <-- Heard that on NPR.

It like when they came up with the whole alert code thing. Like its OMFG orange STAY INDOORS PEOPLE!!! Feeds into the terrorist's ideals, make the country attacking live in fear.

20 bucks says terrorists are learning out to bomb us from watching American movies about how terrorists are able to bomb America.

[Devil_Dante]

hmm, perhaps. Although most films are pure fiction. But they get some nice ideas from it

[Necromancer]

There will always be bad guys, there will always be good guys and there will always be me (As long as I live and care).

History is not made up of good or bad. Good and bad is all propaganda talk. There is no good or bad, its all about what you believe in. In the US we think that any terrorist is a bad person, but think of of just the same. It not good or evil that moves people to just movements, its ideals.



Ideals, thats all you need to know about history.

I know that, I just wanted to say there will never be a really peaceful world. Maybe when all the humans are died out.

[Killfile]

As to the subject of Good and Evil, the historian in me makes the following argument - history is written by those that win the wars. Good and Evil are rolls assigned by the history writers. Look at the Persian Wars in Ancient Greece. Darius invades Greece with his army from Persia (modern day Iraq). The Greeks defeat the Persians, and get to write the history.

Now it's a few thousand years later, but all the histories of this time period depict the Persian invaders as a definitive negative. They're invaders, sure, but we don't see them as anything but a threat to the wonderful art and culture of Ancient Greece. Good? Evil? The Greeks got to decide.

As to what you can do with a history degree besides teach (a question asked earlier) -- there's a few options. First and foremost, if your specialization is in something remotely modern, there's the possibility of work in a think tank or an intelligence agency.

If you're looking at something less recent, a history degree is the jumping off point for something in law, political science, or several other careers in the Social Sciences.

[TheDarkness]

that comment about history beeing written by the victors... i've heard it in a movie very recently... ARgh can't remeber the name.

Anyways. I don't think you can call an entire country or religion evil because of the fact that some individuals think they have to act in a certain manner (i don't say this because of my believe cause quite frankly... i don't believe). I mean it's the same as in WOI. The world depicted the germans as bad and evil. Look what it got them.... Another World War.
Still i think that mr Bush has another Vietnam happening but he doens't realize it yet. There is no way in heaven he can win from an organisation that isn't located in one specific spot. As long as he keeps talking about that whole war on terror crap he'll get his ass kicked just as happened during the vietnam war when they were to stubborn to quit (I have nothing against america but this is just my opinion)

[Killfile]

Still i think that Mr Bush has another Vietnam happening but he doesn't realize it yet. There is no way in heaven he can win from an organization that isn't located in one specific spot.

Very astute -- probably more so than you realize. Since we're already on the topic of history anyhow, and in this case, history repeating itself -- let me elaborate.

The cutting edge of the United States military tends to lag about 10 to 20 years behind the visions and ideals of its strategists and weapons developers. Today, our military exists as it was envisioned in the 1970s-1990s. This was a time that the US thought that the next big war would be against the Soviet Union and would be fought in Europe.

For confirmation of this reality -- look at the weapons we're using in Iraq right now. The A10 Thunderbolt - designed to attack Soviet tank formations in Europe's narrow mountain passes. The Patriot Missile System - designed to intercept tactical missiles and protect forward assets - anticipating a nuclear tip to a Soviet infantry advance into Germany.

Our military is fundamentally designed to fight a western military structure -- one that has a headquarters (Moscow) and operates according to several THOUSAND years of western military thinking.

The war (if you want to call it that) we're fighting doesn't adhere to these basic ideals. The war in Vietnam didn't either. At a very basic level, if the US wants to prevail against this kind of enemy, it has to do so in a way that is fundamentally different. Rather than seek conquest through military supremacy, it must seek to make friends, win hearts, and do good.

If we'd spent the staggering sum of money we've spent in Iraq on - say - providing fresh water to places in the world that don't have it - we might have fewer terrorist threats in the world today.

[Buzkashi]

Seriously, the billions upon billions of dollars used could have been put to so much better use than this war.

[Southpaw]

Make friends, win hearts, and do good.

Kind of like we are doing in Iraq by helping them rebuild water filtration stations? Kind of like taking violent street gangs of their streets and rebuilding their schools and hospitals? The kind of help we provide by training their military and police forces?

We already have made the friends and won the hearts. The insurgency is already falling apart and fighting amongst itself. The suicide bombings you see in the news, those are not volunteers, they ran out of those. Now they kidnap the families of these poor mean as ransom unless they blow themselves up. They even take the precaution of handcuffing them to their cars and having remote detonation systems.

Our military does know how to fight a decentralized insurgency. They have been planning, training, and preparing since the end of Vietnam for one. Why, because they didn't ever want to endanger the lives of their men again. The training worked ladies and gentlemen. Our forces do indeed have military hardware designed for fighting a Soviet era military force. Do you know what that means though? It means that it was designed to stand up too odds of 3 to 1 at the least and win. I call that over engineering. It was built to do more than anyone had a right to expect of it. So that means that all of our equipment designed then does that. That doesn't mean so much though considering in an unconventional war their is only one important military unit. That is the modest infantry soldier. That's it. Everything else is fluff. They don't make vehicles or airplanes to fight guerrilla warfare, you do it with men. Well we have lots of them. Lots of well trained, well armed fighting men. They know what to do and when to do it. There has never been a more well trained or equipped fighting force on the face of this planet. It doesn't mean we are invincible, but we ain't in the kiddie leagues either.

This is so far from another Vietnam it is ridiculous. We are in a nation that wants us there. Fighting a foe that is demoralized and is not supported by the indigenous people. Our military is not a poorly trained conscript force. It is a highly trained and motivated force with the equipment to do the job right.

The only similarity to Vietnam is people whining to pull out because we didn't INSTANTLY make all the bad guys go away. The thought that a military campaign takes time confuses them. The only way this fight will be lost is if our government caves to the demand to pull out before the Iraqi military is ready to take up the job and even then all troops will not leave because at that point the training will just have begun. It is possible to lose this conflict, but it won't be for lack of a properly trained army operating on a valid campaign plan.

[TheDarkness]

you say your making friends and winning hearts... Well i gotta hand it to ya. That is indeed what the Americans are doing. Only problem is that the ones they are befriending are NOT the ones that do/support the bombings. What good is it to make friends if all it does is make your enemies more fanatic?

Another thing.... There is no way to fight a decentralized insurgency. All you can do is disable 1 or 2 cells... but for every cell you kill another one takes it's place. Hell you Americans (i take it you are American since you talked as being part of America in your post) use this tactic yourself. The CIA works with cells. Why?? Because it is impossible to kill them all before they are, if needed, replaced.

Now for the Vietnam part... Here comes a bit of history.
1954 - Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy (from 1954 onward) send civilian advisers and, later, military personnel to train South Vietnamese.
You said... and i quote

The kind of help we provide by training their military and police forces?

In this war too you were supported. Heck most of south Vietnam supported America. Still after about 20 years of constant fighting it ended in a loss since the American people no longer believed in this war. This is also exactly what is going on right now. But this time it isn't just America that is against the whole war on terror. Even civilians and military personal in Holland (where i live) gave up on the war already.

Last thing. Back to the decentralized insurgency. In Vietnam there was a centralized command. Ok it was not easy to find but there was a small group (if not a single person) pulling the strings. Still as stated above it ended in defeat. No in this war on terror part there is no central command. It's a bunch of cells that operate independently. The only thing in common is that at one point they became a member of an organization like al queda. They were then sent somewhere and can do what ever they want to wreak havoc as long as it follows the guidelines of the al queda.

I here by rest my case.

[Buzkashi]

Kind of like we are doing in Iraq by helping them rebuild water filtration stations?

that we destroyed....

rebuilding their schools and hospitals?

That we destroyed.....

The kind of help we provide by training their military and police forces?

That we destroyed.....

[Loeviz]

Well I also don´t have anything against America in itself, only towards Bush.

And I can´t help but too think about (and this is just my twisted thought´s I have in my head and need to ventilate) What if it´s like this:

Wasn´t the UK speaking off taking the troops they have in Iraq home again, then why did Al Qaida bomb them.
Could it be that Bush ordered the bombings himself so he could relight the fighting spirit in UK (And hopefully the rest off the European countries).

If that is the case he could stop sending so many troops and let the European´s do it, and at the same time deflect the "new Vietnam" cause more countries jumped into the action and thus he might talk himself out off it.

[Southpaw]

Kind of like we are doing in Iraq by helping them rebuild water filtration stations?

that we destroyed....

rebuilding their schools and hospitals?

That we destroyed.....

The kind of help we provide by training their military and police forces?

That we destroyed.....

Incorrect Buz, those facilities had long been allowed to fall out of use by Saddam's regime before we even began planning to invade Iraq. As for the police force we destroyed I am sure the Iraqi's are greatly pleased that we got rid of Saddam's group of secret police, I mean destroying a group that terrorizes, abducts, kidnaps, and murders was a great sin.

As for their military yeah we destroyed, but quite frankly it wasn't of any use the way they had it. It was a completely incompetent force. So in the end the end they are left with nothing but improvements.

As for Britain pulling out it's troops I assume you are referring to the withdrawal plan that has been leaked to the media. As far as I can tell that is an option document. A plan prepared for a world leader because they feel pressure to act in a certain manner and want to see the possibility of said action and the consequences thereof. It doesn't mean they will or will not do said action in this case pull out of Iraq. Maybe they will, maybe they won't only time will show that.

The rest of your post Loeviz is too incoherent to make any sense of. It looks like a conspiracy theory concocted at 3 in the morning after drinking too much jagermeister.

Now TheDarkness, yours is by far an amusing post. You see we don't have to kill any terrorists to win. They will die off from lack of support. Everything they need to operate is provided by people sympathetic to their cause. All their money, weapons, explosives, food and even hiding places are given to them. If no one wants them around they will lose these things. It is hard to fight with no food or ammunition. It is doubly hard when anyone who sees you will call the police to report you. The terrorists simply cannot exist on their own. As for not being able to destroy a force that is broken into cells, that's funny. We are doing it, every day. We do it with tips provided by local people. They say a group of armed men here, or terrorists demanded their truck there and we chase them down. Some leads offer nothing others offer prisoners. Prisoners have information, we retrieve it. It goes on and on.

I love your history quote. We sent advisers, wow that says so much right there. It says so much that means nothing.

I already said we would lose if we lost hope in ourselves. You really do add so little of value to this argument. As for the Vietnamese central command, yeah we knew where it was. Maybe in Hanoi the North Vietnam Capital which was off limits to bombing because of idiotic the rules of engagement passed down from on high, I.E. the president.

As for Hollands support of the war I will make two points

1. You do NOT speak for every person in your country only yourself.
2. We don't care about your opinion as it cannot change the matter either way. If you supported us that would not keep us there if we wanted to leave and if you did not support us (as you claim Holland does not) it would not force us to leave. America does not make policy because other countries have feelings. We make policy to fix problems.

We do not care about the International communities opinions in this. If we did we never would of invaded, because you told us not too. If the international community doesn't want to see a problem that is staring in the face that's fine. We won't ignore it however.