Friday, August 25, 2006

How To End The GWOT

"Power never takes a back step - only in the face of more power." ~ Malcolm X

This post will make our Liberal friends, namely Dan, spit nails, but I have been thinking about this for some time. I believe there is a solution to this war on terror thing, but it involves taking some rather drastic steps that we so far have been unwilling to take.

I think Osama bin Laden gave us the answer to this particular problem himself, when he said, "America is a paper tiger."

Years ago I was the manager of a marketing office in a major nationwide corporation that was mired in a slump. Sales were lackluster and it seemed, despite my best efforts, my employees were becoming apathetic. My boss called me in and told me, "You need to fire someone. Who are you going to fire?"

He went on to explain that something drastic had to be done to shake the employees up, and get them out of the doldrums. All the motivational techniques had failed to elicit the proper response, so he decided that what is known in the business as a "public execution" was in order.

A "public execution" in our business meant firing someone in front of everyone else, not behind closed doors, which was, of course, the typical method.

So, I selected an employee (who, incidentally, later became my wife) and, in the morning sales meeting, I fired her.

It had the intended effect. After sitting in stunned silence for a few seconds, the remaining employees were noticeably shaken, but I could tell, impressed. After that fateful meeting, personal performances among my employees improved dramatically.

This is something like what I think should be done to end this seemingly unending struggle against terrorism.

Do the terrorists indeed think that America is a "paper tiger"?

If so, I believe it's time to show them what America can do. We need to show them that not only can we annihilate them, but are willing to do just that in order to stop this scourge.

Here is my solution:

Using all the intelligence information that we have on the possible whereabouts of bin Laden, hit that particular area with a nuclear bomb. Whether we kill bin Laden or not is immaterial. We will have shown the world, particularly the terrorists, that this paper tiger has iron teeth.

Would the terrorists continue to murder innocent men women and children in the name of Allah?

I don't think so. Once they realize that America not only has the power to wipe them out, but the willingness to unleash that power, they will surrender.

62 comments:

Jim said...

Brilliant!

Lone Ranger said...

So far, only Democrats have a reputation for dropping nukes and I'd like to keep it that way. And then there's that pesky fallout, which would contaminate much of Pakistan and India and could move on to Southeast Asia. My plan would be to get Dan Rather to interview bin Laden and then strap a suicide belt on him. Two birds with one stone.

tugboatcapn said...

So, I selected an employee (who, incidentally, later became my wife) and, in the morning sales meeting, I fired her.

That, my friend, is an interesting coincidence.

Nukular (Or more accurately, Atomic) weapons have been used exactly twice in the History of Human Conflict, and that was by the U.S., against Japan.

And ever since, Japan has been our most faithful partner in the whole World.

They have supported whatever the United States has tried to do, with conviction and enthusiasm, for 60+ years.

And incidentally, Japan has become one of the most successful and prosperous nations in the World.

You are exactly right.

The reason that Terrorists attack americans and American Interests is because they believe that they can defeat us.

The way to stop them is to show them that they cannot.

Great post!

Welcome Back!

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Now we're thinking, Mark!

Bush needs to make clear what Cheney meant when he sais "All options are on the table"!

This whole Iran/N. Korea thingy is due to the enemy's confidence that the USA will never dare use nukes.

I hope we wake up next Friday to news of a strike in Iran--or as you so brilliantly explained, the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan!

rusty shakelford said...

they say if you nuke the desert it will turn miles of sand into glass

Seamus said...

This would have to be done pretty carefully, I think. To escalate things right now seems like we just ran out of options and are desperate. The retaliatory strike should have been swift and terrible. At this point it would be stale and sore.

If we were to make a sudden ultimatum, that would change the scenario. We could go on national news, annnounce that Bin Laden has exactly 10 days to surrender, or we nuke his location to the best of our knowledge. That would both explain our actions and send a message of our seriousness.

As for ending the war, I don't think that would happen. A nuke isn't going to stop religious fanatacism. It would stop nationalism, however, if the nation is in ruins. We have to consider whether our paticular enemy is fanatacism or nationalism.

If fanatacism, our course of action would be harder to determine. I don't really know at the moment how to destroy that. We would have the circular problem of destroying the fanatics while simultaneously creating more fanatics through martyrs.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Fanatacism.....er....ummm....Japan (as so wonerfully referenced by the Cap'n)? Germany?

Erudite Redneck said...

I think you should be locked up, preemptively, before you hurt yourself or someone else. That'd be about as sane and justifiable. More so, maybe.

Let's see: Shoot illegal immigrants down like dogs as they come across the border. Nuke millions, including babies and other innocents.

Sick. Verging on evil.

Mark said...

Well, ER, at least I am thinking of solutions. What are the Democrats thinking? Besides unconditional surrender to the terrorists, that is?

Do the Democrats even have a workable solution?

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

This is something like what I think should be done to end this seemingly unending struggle against terrorism.

Iraq should have been that example. And initially, it was (such as Libya's response).


But Mark...I hope you had your tongue somewhat planted in your cheek, when you posted this. I've been worrying about you.

I think lone ranger is onto something, however....

Mark said...

Or do the Democrats think they can talk the terrorists out of murdering innocents?

Because negotiation has worked so well up until now?

You know, eventually the number of innocent Americans winding up dead because America won't take decisive action will outnumber the number of Muslims that might have died had we used our nuclear capability.

Then what excuse will the Democrats have for supporting "cut and run" strategy?

The Liberals have been saying all along, "War is not the answer" and I have been continually asking them this question:

"What is the answer?"

So far I have heard no answer to my query except:

"Negotiate".

Well, I think the terrorists have long since demonstrated that doesn't work, so now what? Do you any better ideas than what I have suggested?

I didn't think so.

Francis Lynn said...

Nuking 'em ain't gonna stop 'em. That unrealistic. We need to take them in as partners. How?
Money makes the world turn. I propose setting up Allahland theme parks thoughout the world. The terrorists will be so busy making money that they won't have time for their acts. They will be making a killing rather than doing it.

Just think of it - car bomb rides, virtual suicides, 73 virgin showgirl performances & falafel stands on every corner. And the homeboy himself, Muhammad. to greet the throngs. It's a winner for sure. Peace in our time.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

LOL, Francis--maybe the nuke thingy is a bit hasty!

LOL, again!

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"Let's see: Shoot illegal immigrants down like dogs as they come across the border. Nuke millions, including babies and other innocents."--ER

Perhaps we should allow our nation to be taken over by Mexicans before Islamofascist thugs gain control instead!

Gayle said...

It would indeed be drastic, but it certainly would get the point across, Mark.

I like Seamus's idea: Give Bin Ladin an ultimatum! Not a bad idea at all. Japan has been our friends for 60 years, haven't they! Although that does seem a rather strange way to make friends!

An aside: Mark, I didn't remove your link on my sidebar, at least not intentionally. It has been fixed! :)

Little Miss Chatterbox said...

LOL--I absolutely love Lone Ranger's solution.

I think you nailed it on the head with your firing the employee comparison. I too have been thinking that appeasing terrorists is like a weak kid who appeases the school yard bully. Appeasement never works!! Only power and strength does. Your Malcolm X quote is right on the money.

I don't know about the nuclear bomb thing but we definitely need to convey strength not appeasement.

Erudite Redneck said...

negotiation works right up until war begins. therefore, mark, negotiation, to date, is successful in keeping us out of a war with n. korea, and iran. what part of that is unclear?

and, if i thought you meant to sully what's left of the moral foundation of the GOP, i might have responded with a partisan remark. but i don't take anything you say as mainstream even for today's extremist, hollowed-out, increasingly farcical and irrelevant repub party, so i didn't.

you're just pulling crap out of your butt. nor worth a serious response.

Jim said...

Francis Lynn is actually on the right track. Nothing succeeds like a piece of the action.

Mark said: "Well, ER, at least I am thinking of solutions. What are the Democrats thinking? Besides unconditional surrender to the terrorists, that is?"

Big Lie again. "The Democrats have no plan! The Democrats have no plan!" Bullshit

The Democrats have proposed several plans. Plans which could be very effective. Plans that are detailed, well thought out. None of them involve surrender, unconditional or otherwise.

The fact that you continue to spew the Democrats have no plan Big Lie means you obviously have your head up somewhere where you can't read or watch television news.

Mark said...

Oh, really Jim? What is this so called, "well thought out plan?"

I keep hearing Democrats saying they have a plan, but so far no one has presented it. If it is really in America's best interests, why haven't they revealed this mystery plan of theirs?

No, their plan is talk. Talk. Talk. And keep talking until there is no Americans left to talk.

Get it through your heads, Democrats.

Talking doesn't work with these animals. You may as well try to convince your dog not to eat.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"negotiation works right up until war begins. therefore, mark, negotiation, to date, is successful in keeping us out of a war with n. korea, and iran. what part of that is unclear? "

Oh...it's clear, alright. It's clear that by useless negotiation we allow our enemies to strengthen and we make those who are depending on our action begin to doubt if we have the resolve.

Bombs freaking away!

Click the link, enjoy the video!

Jim said...

Here you go:

The Biden plan and here - presented April 2006.

The Murtha Plan - November 2005

The Korb plan endorsed by Dean and other leading Democrats - presented fall 2005.

The Feingold plan - January 2006

To say the Democrats have no plan is to continue with the Big Lie. It's Bullshit. We know it, you know it, and more and more Americans are beginning to know it.

Dan Trabue said...

"This post will make our Liberal friends, namely Dan, spit nails"

Me, ER and anyone opposed to war crimes - ie, the vast majority of the US. You'll have to shoot them big missiles off from jail, Mark.

It is against our laws to target civilians. I would think that would go without saying, but I'll say it here.

Fortunately for the world, the crazy (insane, nuts, etc) talk brought up here will never happen in the real US. We're not perfect, but neither are we evil as Mark and apparently a majority of his friends think.

You are and always will be in the minority on this, Mark. Give up this traitorous talk.

Dan Trabue said...

One question, Mark:

You said:

"Once they realize that America not only has the power to wipe them out, but the willingness to unleash that power, they will surrender."

My question is: Would it work for us - would we surrender once we realize they had the power and willingness to wipe us out? Would you?

I suspect your own answer will be a testimony as to just how poor a plan this is you've suggested.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"You are and always will be in the minority on this, Mark. Give up this traitorous talk"

Yeah, Mark! Be a "real" patriot and let the terrorists walk all over you and make fools of you. America's better off that way! Let them win their goal while you say, "No, no, no, you naughty little boys!"

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"My question is: Would it work for us - would we surrender once we realize they had the power and willingness to wipe us out? Would you?"

Dan! You would have us surrender without knowing? You would, wouldn't you?

They've said it's their intention. We have the means to do the job quickly and effectively--the God-given means, BTW.

How many civilians will die if THEY get the technology they desire? Judging from their repeated public and demonstrably determined threats, that is!

Mark may be in the minority. But he is in the right!

Your solutions are illogical and impracticle. They're foolish and irresponsible. It's pretty easy to see that when you don't have a mild veil of hatred for the USA.

ELAshley said...

The problem here is the 'pesky' fallout' issue. But moreso, we couldn't drop just one-- or two as in Japan --we'd have to be willing to drop any many as it took to make the Islamaniacs sue for peace; in effect, make them cry 'Uncle!'

And it wouldn't have to be nukes, per se. What about a MOAB on top of the holiest site in all of Islam? Followed by the second holiest site the next day (it's best to let them think we haven't the balls to bomb more than one site, give them a day for outrage and defiance and threats, then hit them again).

Once we run out of holy sites, we begin with cities... Damascus, Riyadh, Teheran... then immediately begin rounding up every muslim in the nation and placing them in internment camps, in preparation for sterilization and finally deportation.

We would then have to reinstate the draft. And man the borders... perhaps even officially recognize the Minuteman Project.

As to the Biden plan, US Forces wouldn't begin withdrawing in any significant numbers til the end of 2007.

The Murtha plan? Get real, the man's has lost his mind.

Korb? "Phased Redeployment" is the new democratic catch-phrase for "Cut and Run," and again, no significant troop withdrawal til the end of 2007.

And Feingold! "Flexible Timetable" that's results-based? Wha? When would a "Phased redeployment" ever begin?

Biden's plan is the ONLY plan with even a marginal sense of common sense.... and only in regard to giving the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites their own autonomous regions, or better yet, countries.

Finally, I find Dan's litany of 'War Crimes' increasingly amusing-- What war was ever not a crime?

Fearing guilt for potential war crimes is no excuse for not acting preemptively to save lives... in the long run. That was, after all, the rationale for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanaticism can only be crushed one way.... Kill every man woman and child. Nits, after all, make lice.

Great post Mark. I'm not sure how helpful it is, but I happen to agree with you.

Jim said...

Holy shit!

Jason H. Bowden said...

We will win the war against Islamic inspired fascism the same way we won the Cold War. We will not do it by talk and surrender like Dan proposed, and Mark's method is a brutal tactic without a strategy. (We nuked Japan to get them to surrender and save lives longterm. Who will surrender if we nuke Kandahar? What objective does that serve?)

Here's a strategy to defeat Islamofascism:

(A) We need to support democracies where we can. That includes Iraq.

(B) We need to support friendly dictators, preferably reformers, when supporting democracy is not realistic.

(C) Unfriendly tyrants should be undermined at every opportunity, possibly overthrown by us or friendly insurgents, until we're back at either (A) or (B). They should not be allowed to have NBCs under any circumstances.

What is so controversial about this? It isn't the rationality of the strategy, but the fortitude required to carry it out those uncomfortable with the war can't handle.

Dan Trabue said...

"Kill every man woman and child."

Elashley, you will only do that after you kill me in cold blood. But seeing how you're willing to kill their children, I guess I'd be just another dead "terrorist" in your mind?

And when the majority of the US and the world stands in opposition to your criminal, terroristic ideas, are you prepared to overthrow the US to accomplish your ideals?

I've noticed no one has answered the question: What would we do if attacked?

I'd suppose you won't answer because the answer would undermine your position. That is, you're thinking that we can terrorize and kill them into submission and it won't work because people will rise up against that sort of terrorism and lawlessness.

Fortunately, the US will never go the way several of y'all are suggesting. You're just scared sad men.

Keep your eyes open for the FBI folk, you can't advocate terrorism and war crimes - it's against the law.

Dan Trabue said...

Jason said:

"We will not do it by talk and surrender like Dan proposed"

Jason, please cite the page and link where I said anything of the sort or apologize for bearing false witness.

Knowing I've never said anything of the sort, I'm awaiting an apology...or do honor, integrity and truth mean nothing to you?

Erudite Redneck said...

EL, you have been masquerading as a civilized human being, apparently. I knew Mark was an animal, as he's proven time and again. I actually thought better of you. Wow.

ELAshley said...

Dan, your outrage is justified. I only offer a solution that will work... I do not advocate said solution. How very Hitleresque that would be. And evil to boot.

ELAshley said...

One other thing, Dan... Why is it you seem completely incapable to recognizing... well... sarcasm for one? Sophistry? Rhetoric? All of these things seem to escape you.

[sigh...]

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"Jason, please cite the page and link where I said anything of the sort or apologize for bearing false witness" Dan

I could cite reams of posts by you that attest to the accuracy of Jason's accusation.

Dan--it IS your position whether you admit it or not. You say otherwise while your posts are still out there compiling a clear profile.

Turn the other cheek and let evil rule--that's your position.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"EL, you have been masquerading as a civilized human being, apparently. I knew Mark was an animal, as he's proven time and again. I actually thought better of you. Wow" ER

This guy (ER) has a habit of being uncivil towards his Christian Brethren.

I challenge anyone to find anywhere ELAshley has been so mean to anyone!

I never thought anything more of ER than what he has displayed in his comments on this thread. Hateful to those with whom he disagrees.

It's all on record--mainly at his own place among his flock!

Dan Trabue said...

My apologies, Elashley. I didn't think you were of that type and yet I fell right for it!

D'oh!

It's just that I've seen several here lately making terroristic suggestions and others agreeing with them that I was beginning to despair of my friends on the Right.

You apparently fooled ER, too...

Or are all these fellas just having a big joke? LR, Mark, Daddio? Are you all just pretending to terrorism as an elaborate joke? One that could get you investigated by the FBI?

Dan Trabue said...

Whoops! In my last comment, I included LR in the list of those who seemed to be supporting attacks with nuclear weapons and, unless I'm mistaken, he is opposed to such action - or at least seemed to indicate that he was opposed to the nuclear holocaust at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My apologies.

Goat said...

Wow, Mark, you are more harderline than even me, though I can find few arguments against your premise that are not subjective. Waziristan is a remote rgion, a very small nuke would send a huge message. It would show we are not playing games with the jihadists and are very serious about our message, stop killing or die!
Our most faithful partner is Australia, thats for Tug, he should know that.

Erudite Redneck said...

Hey, D.dad. I figured you were itching to get into it with me again. I'm not. I wasn't talking to you. Butt out.

One point: Whatever else casual talk of nuclear war is, it's not of God. It's not remotely Christian.

Mark needs -- well, Mark knows what he needs. Never mind.

dreadnought said...

A very interesting correlation: a sales meeting and a nuclear strike. I can’t quite see the connection. A nuclear strike on Pakistan; I don’t think I have heard of a more ridiculous idea. It would be certain to lead the world into an even bigger mess than we are already in. A first step in the problem of Islamic terror is for Israel to leave the West Bank and for the US and the West to recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

By the way, I thought it was the UK who is America’s closest ally. Only the UK is prepared to send thousands of its own troops into the heat of battle to fight at the side of the US.

rich bachelor said...

The going-after-Islam's-holiest-sites scenario is a problem, as one of them is in downtown Jerusalem.

The 'friendly dictatorships' scenario is iffy since America's staunchest ally in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, where a lot of the funds for insurgency come from.
Frankly, it's gonna take more than one solution, and nukes ain't gonna cut it.
Except maybe the 'piece of the action' scenario. What won the Cold War? Economics, pure and simple. Imagine if we hadn't been embargoing Cuba (for example) all these years, but sending support? Then you'd have an ally, not an enemy, 90 miles from the U.S.

Mary said...

Mark!

I've been wondering where you've been.

The question: Would the Islamofascists surrender if we used nuclear weapons?

The answer: No.

They are a breed of fanatics like we haven't seen before.

The atomic bombs worked in Japan because the Japanese, most of them anyway, wanted to live.

Same thing with the Cold War -- Mutual Assured Destruction served as a deterrent because the people of the Soviet Union "Evil Empire" also wanted to live.

But when an enemy doesn't care about life, killing them or the threat of killing them won't bring about their surrender.

So, not even beginning to take the moral issues of using such weapons into account, it wouldn't be an effective strategy.

The current strategy of rooting out the terrorists and encouraging democracy is the difficult course to take, but it's the right one.

Freedom will prevail eventually. Evil wins some battles, but it never wins the war.

ELAshley said...

I have to say I agree with Mary. Dems and libs, however, seem unwilling to pay that high a price. But then, as long as they're not in power....

Dan Trabue said...

"...as long as they're not in power..."

Which, given the Republicans dismal job performance, I expect will only be a few more months...

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Hey, ER. KMA!

I've as much right to comment here as you do. And when you continue to display your blatant high opinion of yourself--you are a TARGET for me.

Really--nothing personal.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Hey, ER!

I realize, of course, WHY you would not want me to draw attention to the lack of civility yo display then accuse others of.

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"But when an enemy doesn't care about life, killing them or the threat of killing them won't bring about their surrender. "--Mary


Unless, of course, they feel their vey FAITH is threatended.

Make Mecca a smoking, radioactive hole in the desert!

Erudite Redneck said...

"Make Mecca a smoking, radioactive hole in the desert!"

--D.dad.

In Jesus's name, of course.

Erudite Redneck said...

Oh, BTW, d.dad:

SMOOCH!

Mike's America said...

"...as long as they're not in power..."

Which, given the Republicans dismal job performance, I expect will only be a few more months...


Dream on Dan the appeaser

Dan Trabue said...

We'll see soon enough, Mike the traitor (see, I can call names, too. If you have pigtails I could dip them in ink and all manner of juvenile actions, Mike).

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

Look, ER, at where Jesus ranks among the left you defend so faithfully!

Kill babies in Jesus' name, right? Promote and defend perversion in Jesus' name, right? Add and omit passages from the Bible in Jesus' name, right, Oh enlightened one?

Oh yeah...and er.....umm....uh...SMACK! (Take that smack anyway you choose--I'll keep it a mystery!)

LOL!

Jim said...

I see Mike is on the Reich-wing talking points mailing list.

Erudite Redneck said...

Dude, I hold my nose and stand with the left.

But if I tried to stand with the right, I'd have to have an oxygen tank just to breath.

ELAshley said...

Reich wing? Is that all Liberals are good for? Resorting to calling people Nazis?

"I feel slighted in this debate... he must be a Nazi!"

Wahhhh, Wah, h, h, Wahhhhhhh!

Grow up.

Dan Trabue said...

Be fair, Elashley. Of the places we both go, I'd think it's fair to say that the lion's share of name-calling runs right to left.

dreadnought said...

This has become a lousy and pointless debate!!!

Erudite Redneck said...

Dang if you didn't finally get my rightful title right, D.Dad!

O Enlightened One.

I like it!

Call me OEO for short.

Jim said...

Reich is German for empire and pre-dates the Nazi era. Hitler Germany was the third Reich.

Dan Trabue said...

On Mark's original solution, I wonder: Does it matter where we find the general vicinity of bin Laden to be?

That is, if we should nuke northern Pakistan if that's what our intelligence tells us, would the same hold true if he's holed up in northern Montana? And, if not, what's the difference?

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"And, if not, what's the difference?"--Dan

The difference? Usama ISN"T in Montana. He would never be ABLE to hide in Montana--unless, of course, a bunch of wacko-liberal shmucks managed to populate the area.

The difference? Wherever he might hide, he is being aided by those around him!

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"Be fair, Elashley. Of the places we both go, I'd think it's fair to say that the lion's share of name-calling runs right to left."--Dan

Ah....ahhhh....ahhhhhh....BULLSH*T!