France Will Never Forget

[bush_cheney2004]

There was a revolution, but it was in Iraq and Afghanistan instead. Close enough for government work.

[Black Dog]

In invading Iraq, the US has shown some simple, superstitious people who is boss. In invading Afghanistan, NATO has shown many people that it will stand for no nonsense.

Is that a fact? Putting aside your gross insult to ordinary people (zing?) contained above, the facts speak otherwise. If a show of superior force was all it took, why are we having this discussion about terrorism five years after the invasion of Afghanistan and four years after Iraq? Or, for that matter, why are we still talking about Palestinian terrorism after decades of Israeli "shows of force"? Is it, as some like ScottSturm Abteilung or jbg would say, that the massive shows of force heaped upon these states and peoples were simply insufficient?

I used to use a quote from Samuel "Clash of Civilizations" Huntington (his ideas, of course, are still very much in vogue) as my signature: "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-westerners never do." Do you really think, August, that decades upon decades of bombs and bullets from western guns (aimed by westerners or their proxies) hasn't got the point across? Or could it be that is what led us to this place today?

[marcinmoka]

Recent history shows us that American blacks never resorted to terrorism like Islamic terrorists, neither have gays, natives, or religious folk of any stripe

Touché

As to terrorists, they are not that different from other criminal gangs such as the mafia or the Hell's Angels. The best way to counteract such groups is to infiltrate and/or use informers. Money is often a great motivator in getting people to talk, particularly when it's presented as a guarantee for the future of wives or children.

Bingo. And while intelligence alone will not work (we need sticks as well as carrots), it goes far in dealing with the issue. This is a point far too often neglected.

In contrast, terrorism is not:

the result of jealousies and resentments that have built up over decades within Islamic societies

While some fanatical "actors" have been sold this simplified version of why they must fight, the foundation of terrorism is as an ECONOMIC TOOL, a final gasp by a elite of a society "the directors" scared of loosing the existent power structure which has made them subjectively "well off" up to this point. It is important to discern between these two streams. And we must not forget that many groups are disenchanted, but most do not take up such tactics.

Edited July 24, 2007 by marcinmoka

[marcinmoka]

What happened to France....laughlingly lost in the shuffle (as usual).

*On a side note*

While I am no day dreaming idealist on security and am passionately pro-Nato, it is funny to note that Jaques Chirac was the only head of state who actually had first hand experience in the occupation of an Islamic nation, one which he volunteered for as a proud Gaulist a few decades back.

[August1991]

Only France?

I think some Canadians should take pride in what their grandfathers and great-grandfathers did some 64 years ago today. These Canadians were a major part of a landing force. Why were they there? I have thought about this question many times - while walking in Commonwealth cemeteries around the world and on the beach at Dieppe. What motivates people to fight in an army?

Canadians were not willing (terrified) to die to defend the Fatherland against an invader. I have come to the conclusion that while young Canadians in the 1930s/1940s had many reasons for joining the military, underneath these reasons was the desire to make the world a better place for the future. They were fighting against evil because that is the right thing to do.

Another related question that has troubled me is "who won the war?" Well, "countries" don't fight a war (any more than countries trade). Individual soldiers fight a war (just as individuals trade). It is wrong to say that "Russia" defeated "Nazi Germany". Individual soldiers from around the world did that.

-----

Which Canadians today would volunteer to do as these men did - risk their life and overcome their fear?

Edited June 6, 2008 by August1991

[Shakeyhands]

Blair > won

Bush > won

Howard > won

How's that working for them now?

[bush_cheney2004]

How's that working for them now?

Very well compared to....

Martin > lost

[AngusThermopyle]

Which Canadians today would volunteer to do as these men did - risk their life and overcome their fear?

Oh, about 70,000 plus, at least.

[DogOnPorch]

It would be getting to the end of a VERY long day on the beaches of Normandy. June 6, 1944.

--------------------------------------------------

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

---General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...The Longest Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qAtyh_HHQs

[Guest American Woman]

I'm inclined to believe that the best way to counteract this Islamist threat is to respond with greater and more sophisticated force. Bin Laden referred to choosing the faster horse. If ours is the better society, then we must demonstrably show that our horse is faster.

Kowtowing to or patronizing superstitious people will get us nowhere.

The best way to conteract the Islamist threat is through education. There are so many rural areas in Muslim countries that have no schools, and the fundamentalist Islamic sects in places like Saudi Arabia have been moving into these places and rapidly building "Islamic" schools in large numbers. I strongly believe we should be building 'secular' schools, providing water, giving these areas the means to educate the young people, and that includes girls. Education of girls is mandatory, and most of the people want that for their kids. But when the fundamentalists move in and provide the 'education' for these children, it's on their terms, and so the kids are learning to hate Americans/the west. They are learning what the fundamentalists want them to learn. If we were in places like Iraq and Afghanistan helping them instead of waging war, there would be so much less hatred. What we could have done to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim world if we had we actually been helping them would have done wonders, would have accomplished so much. Not only would it have helped them, but it would have helped us. My signature is so true.

[Remiel]

While it sounds fine and well, in theory, to send all of these kids to secular schools, I am not sure that that is really the best course of action in the present. Western ideas of secular schools tend to carry the baggage of being culturally diluting, as they often focus on Western achievements. Some would say that the cultures are the problem, and that they should be " wiped out " , but that kind of colonialism has not produced good results in the past. You have to leave people with something to be proud of, or else they will fall off of the path.

I think that perhaps you might see more success in the long run if you made schools that were progressive or liberal Islam, and that included some religious studies along with the study of reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. Kind of like our Catholic schools, I suppose. The benefit of this, over having schools that did not have any religious teachings, is that children would be learning substitutes to what they might here in the more radical mosques, instead of having the school merely for academics and depending on the mosque for all religious teachings.

[Guest American Woman]

I put 'secular' in quotes because I meant community/culturally based schools, but if I had put it that way I was afraid some would read 'Islamic Schools.' So I definitely am not talking about our teaching western cultural standards, but rather building the schools so the locals can teach their children according to their customs. When it comes right down to it, we all want what's best for our children-- And by "all" I'm referring to the masses, because the vast majority of us are moderates and would get along if given a chance.

So I do realize that the schools wouldn't be entirely secular since Islam is a big part of these cultures, but the purpose of the schools would be academic, not teaching fundamentalist Islam. I agree with what you had to say about that.

[Army Guy]

I think some Canadians should take pride in what their grandfathers and great-grandfathers did some 64 years ago today. These Canadians were a major part of a landing force. Why were they there? I have thought about this question many times - while walking in Commonwealth cemeteries around the world and on the beach at Dieppe. What motivates people to fight in an army?

Walking the many grave sites that dot the European landscape is a gut wrenching and educational experience that will last forever. And while i never asked myself the same question as you did, mine was would I have the same courage and conviction as they did.

It's hard to boil down one single motivation factor that movtivates people to join the any Army,To Defend your countries flag and ideals, to be apart of a unique and special group of citizens, To be a participant in history "just to say you were there", Those may be the ideals everyone starts off with , ones that get you to the recruiting office....

But once your in, and on an operational tour, your views for being there change, your not fighting for any of those patriotic reasons, Not for Queen, country, or history book....your there to fight and defend those that can not or will not fight for themselfs. to make things right when diplomacy has failed...But even this changes once your on tour or mission long enough....

Now your fighting and dying for your comrads in arms, your buddies, your best friends, those that are your entire world while you are there, this is why men can can charge up a beach, riddled with Machine gun nests, landmines and arty bombs....this is why men do heroic acts, not to win medals but looking after thier buddies.... A bond stronger than brother and sister, a bond stronger than wife or husband, a bond that is worth giving your life up to with out a second thought, it is this bond that makes men and women fight wars....

Which Canadians today would volunteer to do as these men did - risk their life and overcome their fear?

I would like to think that the Canadians of today are no different than those of yesteryear. And if the same conflicts were to arise they would once again be lined up, ready to sign the dotted line,and don the uniform.

[White Doors]

The best way to conteract the Islamist threat is through education. There are so many rural areas in Muslim countries that have no schools, and the fundamentalist Islamic sects in places like Saudi Arabia have been moving into these places and rapidly building "Islamic" schools in large numbers. I strongly believe we should be building 'secular' schools, providing water, giving these areas the means to educate the young people, and that includes girls. Education of girls is mandatory, and most of the people want that for their kids. But when the fundamentalists move in and provide the 'education' for these children, it's on their terms, and so the kids are learning to hate Americans/the west. They are learning what the fundamentalists want them to learn. If we were in places like Iraq and Afghanistan helping them instead of waging war, there would be so much less hatred. What we could have done to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim world if we had we actually been helping them would have done wonders, would have accomplished so much. Not only would it have helped them, but it would have helped us. My signature is so true.

They are in Afghanistan building schools and water access and hospitals. All those great things. the reality of the situation is, when someone is trying to kill the people building these things you have to protect yourself.

What do you expect them to do? Build the schools and let the Taliban kill the teachers with inpunity? You think that would work?

Look up the amount of girls enrolled in schools over the past 10 years in Afghanistan for proof of this. (that is if you are willing to have your pre-conceptions shattered)

There is no freedom without at least some security.

[August1991]

Now your fighting and dying for your comrads in arms, your buddies, your best friends, those that are your entire world while you are there, this is why men can can charge up a beach, riddled with Machine gun nests, landmines and arty bombs....this is why men do heroic acts, not to win medals but looking after thier buddies.... A bond stronger than brother and sister, a bond stronger than wife or husband, a bond that is worth giving your life up to with out a second thought, it is this bond that makes men and women fight wars....

Years ago, very young, I had the chance to talk with an old man who had fought in WWI. He said to me much the same as you say here. As he put it, I had a friend on my left and a friend on my right. There was a friend in front. When we went over the top, we all went together.

In Sri Lanka, I recall two gravestones in a Commonwealth cemetery, both indicating death on the same date. One was in his late teens and the other in his 40s with the added inscription: There is no greater sacrifice than to lay down one's life in defence of another. I think they were naval but I don't know and I wondered what the story was.

When I saw Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, I thought that he (or his scriptwriter) got the essential, superficial question. How/why does one person sacrifice their life for another?

But there's a greater question: a civilized person can't defeat evil alone. For this, we must work together.

Edited June 13, 2008 by August1991

[DogOnPorch]

Aug: Years ago, very young, I had the chance to talk with an old man who had fought in WWI. He said to me much the same as you say here. As he put it, I had a friend on my left and a friend on my right. There was a friend in front. When we went over the top, we all went together.

Many units in WW1 were raised locally...especially in the British New Army. 'Pal' batalions, they were called. One well placed shell could wipe out all the men from a given town. Thus the American policy...which most of the world adopted if possible...of making sure each unit was a mix of everyone from everywhere in the US. Certain limitations on family members serving together also came into effect with "The Sullivans" incident. That was where five brothers all serving on the light crusier USS Juneau died in one of the sea battles off Guadalcanal in 1942. I'm not sure if the Sullivan regulations are enforced to this day. They did make a wartime movie about them, though: The Fighting Sullivans.

---------------------------------------

The idea that a war can be won by standing on the defensive and waiting for the enemy to attack is a dangerous fallacy, which owes its inception to the desire to evade the price of victory.

---General Sir Douglas Haig

[bush_cheney2004]

... I'm not sure if the Sullivan regulations are enforced to this day. They did make a wartime movie about them.....

No, this is a common misconception. The resulting "Sole Survivor Policy" was intended to protect remaining siblings from a single family, but technically do not prohibit siblings from serving together, particularly during peacetime. Each service has different implementations.

It is interesting to note that the "Fighting Sullivans" had to request permission to serve together from Washington (BUPERS), as US Navy policy discouraged such practice long before Guadalcanal.

[Guest American Woman]

They are in Afghanistan building schools and water access and hospitals. All those great things. the reality of the situation is, when someone is trying to kill the people building these things you have to protect yourself.

What do you expect them to do? Build the schools and let the Taliban kill the teachers with inpunity? You think that would work?

Look up the amount of girls enrolled in schools over the past 10 years in Afghanistan for proof of this. (that is if you are willing to have your pre-conceptions shattered)

There is no freedom without at least some security.

I'm not talking about 'fixing what we broke;' building schools in areas that we've destroyed by war. In other words, I'm not talking exclusively about Afghanistan-- I'm talking about the Middle East, which is more than Afghanistan and Iraq because recruits are coming from other nations, too. More importantly, I'm talking about doing that instead of going to war.

So when I say we should build schools, etc., I'm talking about asking the people in these countries where their need is; where they'd like to see schools built. I'm talking about doing this in cooperation with them. I'm talking about places other than Afghanistan where extremists from countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have gone in and build numerous 'anti-western/fundamentalist Islamic' schools that teach hate and produce recruits for the extremists. We need to actually communicate with the people, which is something different entirely from dealing with the government.

In places where this has been done, the people think highly of Americans/the western world. If we would have actually made an all out effort to "win the hearts and minds of the people" instead of waging war, the moderates/uneducated would be on our side instead of joining up with the extremists. It would be a win-win situation because they'd be better off and so would we.

Edited June 14, 2008 by American Woman

[White Doors]

I agree AW, that is a valid strategy as well.

But it is not mutually excclusive to fighting back from people that have attacked your country.

And fyi - Afghanistan was long since destroyed before we ever got there.