“America is like a dog. It cannot understand actual words. It understands inflection, it understands fear, but you can’t actually explain issues to a dog.”
I say, Why don't you try putting us on a leash and taking us out for a dump then, Ray.
RELATED -
West cannot defeat al-Qaeda, says UK forces chief
From the BBC:The West can only contain, not defeat, militant groups such as al-Qaeda, the head of the UK's armed forces has said.A new realism, huh? It is not realistic to say we can not defeat Al Qaeda. It is patently absurd to say we can not defeat them.
General Sir David Richards, a former Nato commander in Afghanistan, said Islamist militancy would pose a threat to the UK for at least 30 years.
But he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show a clear-cut victory over militants was not achievable.
The BBC's Frank Gardner said the comments reflect a "new realism" in UK and US counter-terrorism circles.
Here's realism. Al Qaeda's base is no longer in Afghanistan, it is in Pakistan and Yemen.
We can certainly beat Al Qaeda. All we have to do is nuke Pakistan and Yemen.
One day these "militants" will take it too far, and they will nuke us. At that point we will, finally, take the gloves off, and we pound them into dust.
This British General would have done better to say, "Given the methods we are allowed to use, we will never defeat Al Qaeda.
That would have been realism.
Defeatist talk from top Military brass if a sign of terrible decadence. We have to get over this sickness. Men like this need to be expelled from the Military, not promoted.
UPDATE -
For the record, I didn't say we should nuke them, or that we have to nuke them.
I said, we can win by nuking them.
The point is, we have a General who is defeatist in his attitude. And, in his defeatism, he is not acknowledging reality.
When he says we can not win, he is saying something that is simply not true.
We can win.
By nuking them, at the worst.
There would be other ways to win.
However, if one starts with the idea that we don't want to hurt the civilians in the country against whom we are fighting, then we are not going to be able to imagine any scenarios by which we can win.
That is not the way to fight a war.
8 comments:
Sort about the double-comment, but refer to sultanknish's insightful piece about the effects of living in a siege mentality:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/11/breaking-siege-mentality-of-airline.html
What will break the chokehold and remove the dead hand of a siege mentality when the besieged have become accustomed to their lives being increasingly disrupted by an enemy they neither dare to name nor confront? Some hope my lie with change in political leadership to include a majority who clearly perceive the siege conditions and will take steps to change them.
Another is a high-decibel airhorn wake-up call in the ears of all sleeping minds in the form of another major, that's MAJOR as in holds our attention for more than two days, attack on this country that will make a significant percentate of the population stop chattering and listen to what we have been saying for the past 10 years.
Failing either, the frog will continue to sit placidly in the pot as the water slowly starts to bubble...
@Pasto
Some ugly dog that . . . are we talking about Americans here?
Look pasto why don't you just go for the sensational quote and exaggerate everything, never mind what was ACTUALLY said:
"Bill Maher compared America’s grasp of complex issues to that of a dog. “America is like a dog,” Maher began, explaining “It cannot understand actual words. It understands inflection, it understands fear, but you can’t actually explain issues to a dog.”
That seems to sum up this issue.
Not enough people on this thread have taken the trouble to properly read what has been said in comments."
So, you see it wasn't me that said America(ns) are like a dog it was one of your own.
As for the main argument you have missed the point all the way through. Of course nuking them will mean you win. Even little England could do that all by herself but that's cloud cuckoo land thinking . . . it aint going to happen.
I was meaning the AL-Queda amongst us, in Dearborn, NY, London, Birmingham etc. So, we should nuke our own cities eh? Even Pakiland wouldn't be nuked. Why kill thousands of innocents? NO ONE WOULD DO IT. GET REAL
They have to be dealt with/eliminated one by one and that's one hell of a job.
Oh, and your great military are already in the process of setting up talks with the Taliban with a view to them sharing power in Afghanistan AND THAT was what our General was reflecting.
So your general and our general are pussies then?
Nuke them all!! Gimme a break.
. . . and don't forget we are all on the same side. We are frustrated and angry because we face an enemy that appears to be winning on all fronts and NONE of us has an answer that is practical or doable.
If we stop being on the same side then they are winning again.
We see the country that we love giving in to the Islamists with the help of our dhimmie leaders and we are powerless to stop it.
Ray,
You said: you see it wasn't me that said America(ns) are like a dog it was one of your own.
I say: You quoted it in a way which intimates that you agree with it. Don't deny the truth. You would not have quoted it, if it did not make your point.
You said: As for the main argument you have missed the point all the way through. Of course nuking them will mean you win. Even little England could do that all by herself but that's cloud cuckoo land thinking
I say: No, you have missed the point. I will quote myself:
"I didn't say we should nuke them, or that we have to nuke them.
I said, we can win by nuking them.
The point is, we have a General who is defeatist in his attitude. And, in his defeatism, he is not acknowledging reality.
When he says we can not win, he is saying something that is simply not true.
We can win. By nuking them, at the worst.
There would be other ways to win.
However, if one starts with the idea that we don't want to hurt the civilians in the country against whom we are fighting, then we are not going to be able to imagine any scenarios by which we can win.
That is not the way to fight a war."
THAT IS A GOOD POINT, ISN'T IT, RAY?
You said: . . . and don't forget we are all on the same side.
I say: Yep, and you said Americans are as stupid as dogs.
"THAT IS A GOOD POINT, ISN'T IT, RAY?"
Throwing nukes around is only for when someone throws one at you. Not for fighting terrorists.
I repeat, I did not say America is like a dog at any point. I put the quote up because (which I got from your WZ site) I thought it was interesting. In fact when I give it more thought the quote can apply to the "unthinking majority" of both/all our countries.
Ray,
Now I think I understand our differences of opinion.
You believe we are fighting terrorists.
I believe we are fighting Islam.
To clarify, I do not believe we need to kill every last Muslim.
But, as we did with the Germans, I believe we have to convince the Muslims of the world that there is no quarter for their Jihadist instincts, which let us be clear, are taught to them as a tenet of their faith.
Any attempt at Jihadism, by an Muslim, anywhere in the world, must be met with a crushing response, which includes the killing of innocents.
That is the only way that Muslims, in general, will realize they must put the Jihadists completely out of power.
Common Muslims have shown, again and again, that they will, given the change, put terrible people (Jihadists) in power ...
such as
Hamas
the Muslim Brotherhood,
Hezbollah
Sudan
Nigeria
Kenya,
etc.
Therefore, common Muslims must be made to suffer the consequences of their support of Jihadists, or this war will never be over.
No difference between Islamic terrorism and Islam. None whatsoever.
What the west calls terrorism has been one of the main tenets of Islam since Badar (Mohammed's first looting expedition against the Quraish [Meccans]). Anybody that doesn't understand that is either too stupid or just ill informed.
Ray,
When they nuke us, as I'm pretty sure they eventually will, I hope to God we will follow through on our instinct and nuke them.
But, once again, nuking them was not my point. My point is, it's wrong to say we can not win. We can. Nuking is a way we can win. Once we acknowledge we can win, THEN we decide what we will or will not do.
If we don't choose to win right away, it is not because we CAN'T win. It's because we don't choose to do what we have to do to win.
Look, this man is a general, and I am a nothing. And yet, I am more precise with language, meaning, and the expression/intent of military strategy than he is.
Isn't that pathetic?
Post a Comment