you're doomed to repeat it. I first want to preface this by stating the following post is merely an idea that has been circulating in my head for awhile, and that is all it should be perceived as. I just want everyone's personal opinions, thoughts, agreements, disagreements, etc. based upon what you an individual feel, not a member of a certain political party.

As I get older and prepare to leave college in a few weeks, I cannot help but think of the world with a more broader scope. After all, I might not always be here in the sheltered world of the Great Plans. As a result, I have begun to really think about our country, specifically the war, and what direction we may or may not be headed in. Whereas in the past I merely accepted the fact we were at war and nothing I could say or do would change that so I might as well support it, now I am beginning to wonder whether or not we are truly acting in the best interests of our country or whether there is an ulterior motive involved. I haven't really made up my mind yet, so I do not intend to sound as if I am attacking our President, his party, or our country in general. These are merely thoughts that have been bouncing around my head recently, and I would like to share them with you in order to hear the insights and opinions of some of the members with whom I have gained much respect in my short time here.

The reason I titled this thread in such a manner is because of the similarities I have begun to see between this War on Terrorism and the American Revolutionary War. The Revolutionary War served as a major turning point in the course of human history, and I see our world at a similar crossroads now. Britian was one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, countries in the entire world, much like the United States today. Another similarity between the two countries is their large involvement in foreign matters. The British held possessions all over the known globe, hence the government had to make policy decisions with not only the interests of her own countryman, but also people in far away lands. Much like the King and Queen long ago, the President has similar responsbilities. In order to control those interests abroad, England had to station military garrisons all over the world, in the same manner as our armed forces are spread out throughout the globe.

Another way in which the American Revolution changed the world was the style of warfare in which it was fought. This leads to another connection I see between the two wars. Previous to the Revolutionary War, memebers of the opposing armies got into full dress uniform, formed ranks, and marched on the enemy in an open field somewhere. The colonists knew they would never defeat the British in such a battle, so they camouflaged themselves, hid behind objects, and fired whenever they had a shot, as opposed to "volley firing". This obviously proved to be very effective in defeating the soliders clad in their bright "redcoats". The British viewed this form of fighting as acts of terrorism. Now I don't mean to imply that by hiding behind trees the American colonists fighting for their own freedom from tyranny and oppression were terrorists, but in the eyes of the British at the time, the Americans style of warfare was met with the same view of cowardice as modern terrorists. This new, supposedly immoral style of warfare enabled the American nation to be born and allowed us to become a world power.

The reason I bring all this up is because I fear the way of terrorism might be gradually becoming the new style of warfare. All you have to do is read some of the other threads on this board or pick up a newspaper to see how prevalent terrorists acts have become. The last prior to 9/11 the United States suffered a surprise attack was Pearl Harbor, which was attacked in the typical military fashion. We knew who are enemies were, we knew how to defeat them, hence we answered in typical military fashion and the Allies won the war. In this case, it is not so cut and dried however. We are trying to fight each battle in a typical military fashion, but this is a very different kind of war. So far, our results have not been that great. We took Saddam out of power, but the terrorist attacks have yet to slow down and show no sign of doing so. We defeated the greatest threat to humanity and civility in 5 years. We've had 4 years so far to do the same and have gotten nowhere. Whether you personally feel that means we have to step up our military involvement or it means we should end the military operations altogether is up for you to decide. I, as a fellow American, merely want to see our great country grow and prosper. One of the signatures of a board member is a quote from President Bush about how war is what they wanted and war is what they got. We also got war, but is it the kind we expected? I'm not necessarily against the war, but I do question the manner in which we are going about it. When Japan surrendered, the World War II was over. Plain and simple. How will we know when this kind of war is over?

So after reading this, do you think I'm completely off-base? I believe these terrorists need to be punished accordingly, so I can see the President's reasoning for the war. I also see the other side of the coin in that we need a better plan of accomplishing that justice. So please let me know what you think. I have hung the target on my chest, so fire away! Just please attack my ideas and my analogy, not your least favorite political party. I will far more disappointed if you start slinging political mud than if you threaten to shove a floorlamp up my mother's ass.

True, but when you look at British investments, such as the East India Company, the sole purpose of the British globalization was for the benefit of Britain herself, economically. Whereas, the United States now acts as a member of the global community, with organizations like the UN, dedicated to the world as a whole. I'm not saying that the US doesn't have foreign interests, it would be wholly imprudent to say such a thing. However, many of the US foreign interventions (Rwanda or Bosnia-Herzegovina for example) are done not simply to improve the US's position.

Even the colonies themselves were meant as a means of economic revenue, in Britians seemingly never ending competition with France, Spain, et al, who founded colonies of their own (for instance, St. Augustine, Florida, in 1595, was the first modern settlement on North America, established by the Spanish, predating Jamestown in 1607...my colonial history is a bit rusty at this point, keep that in mind).

Keep in mind that previously, fighting would be standing both armies up in line and ordering the fire command. The American soldiers were also not intentionally attack civilians, or children, or other noncombatants to achieve their goals. It's more of an innovation that the terrorists of today, who don't have the traditional military skill to match the coalition armies. It more closely resembles the guerilla fighting in the Vietnam war.

Doubtful. The reason the US hasn't decimated the Iraqi resistance is because they are forced to fight with kid gloves on. If they used all the military technology they had, they would certainly gain victory, but the world would condemn us. It would be almost like dropping another atomic bomb, even if we managed to minimize casualties.

Despite Japan losing horribly, soldiers in the Japanese army refused to surrender, resembling the samurai code of "bushido," which involves dying in combat or suicide rather than surrender, which is dishonerable. One of the reasons Truman dropped the bomb(s) is because despite the fact that the Japanese army was decimated, thousands of our troops were still dying on the islands.

No, not really. I find it admirable that you have chosen to share your feelings with us.

Just keep in mind, when you go to college, you're going to be getting a mass influx of opinions. I won't even hesitate to say that the majority of your professors will dash their lectures with political content, unabashedly liberal, for the most part. Try to keep an open mind, and interpret history for yourself. Don't listen to someone's explanation simply because they tell you it is so.

I mean, if you listened to the explanation I had about how terrible Ronald Reagan was from my international politics professor last semester, you'd probably believe he was the anti-Christ. :p

So, keep that in mind, and make your mind up for yourself. You'll be a better person for it.

Regards,
Double-J

JB - I think that your post was incredibly well thought out and expressed your emerging thoughts in an extremely intelligent manner. It is excellent to question and explore, and the fact that you are doing so is commendable. I wish that more of your generation would do so, but voting numbers show that 18-24 year olds have the lowest voter turnout. Without question, voting is the best way to express your opinion on the people in power.

I have very mixed feelings about the battles we are currently fighting. I detest war in every way, shape and form. How many times have we heard the words "the war to end all wars", only to fight again? However, being in a suburb of NY, I have see the effects of the terrorism acts on our country. Only today, there was an obituary that referred to the deceased as "an indirect victim of 9/11". It seems that the man lost his wife and unborn child in the World Trade Center, and I suppose his family felt that this eventually killed him. I'm sure that we haven't seen the fallout of that day.

I don't know what I would do if I was Bush. I guess he was placed in a situation where we as a nation desperately wanted revenge, yet almost four years later, we're tired of a seemingly endless battle. It seems that the more time we spend in Iraq, the worse things get over there, and elsewhere. At least he has taken the leadership tole of doing SOMETHING. When Carter was in a similar position during the Iranian hostage crisis, he had half the nation screaming for some military reaction, and the other half adamantly against, with Vietnam still too fresh in their minds. Which led to inaction.

Again, I admire that you have given these concepts so much thought. Keep it going.

Thanks for the responses DJ and SB. I really apprectiate the thought you both put into your responses as well. One thing I wanted to clarify is I am getting out of college, not entering college. I can see how I might have caused some confusion with how I worded that sentence.


Keep in mind that previously, fighting would be standing both armies up in line and ordering the fire command. The American soldiers were also not intentionally attack civilians, or children, or other noncombatants to achieve their goals. It's more of an innovation that the terrorists of today, who don't have the traditional military skill to match the coalition armies. It more closely resembles the guerilla fighting in the Vietnam war. [/quote]I certainly never intended to compare the morals and decency of the American colonists to those of today's terrorists. The most important point I wanted to get across was the unorthodox way in which the colonists conducted their battles. While the colonists would have never harmed innocents, their style of fighting battles was very unorthodox, much like today's terrorists fight their battles.

Again, thanks very much for your replies.

I guess the only way to get anyone to reply to your messages in this forum is to make fun of our president, drop racial slurs, or personally attack someone. And people wonder why it has gotten so rowdy in here lately. When you try to be civil and articulate no one cares.

Sorry, Jimmy B...it's just too long a post to respond to.

It's too long to even read through (and that includes the few replies you DID get). I tried, but even a relevant, timely topic on the Gangster BB can't keep my interest for more than a paragraph or two.



Apple

Sorry, I didn't realize I was typing this for my first graders to read. :rolleyes: I just think some people don't like to participate when they can't get up on their soapbox and scold their "inferior" board members. But seriously, thanks for at least responding to my latest message.

If you do find the stamina to read the 1,000 or so words i wrote on top of the 250,000 you'll probably read in all the threads throughout the day, yours was one response I was looking forward to.

I guess I deserve that, and had a funny feeling I would get that kind of response. Point taken.

Serioulsly, though, I did think it was a great topic, the few lines that I read...I just couldn't be bothered going through it in its entirety. Too much going on here at work (I'm leaving as of August 12) and I much more enjoy reading/answering a quick post throughout the day to break up the monotony of the job.

Yours here would've taken some serious attention. Which I haven't got time (or patience) to give.

Best,
Apple

Ahhhhh...but they're 250,000 words broken out in individual, separate posts (and on different topics)!!! Not one long mantra...regardless of the intelligence and depth of the post.

Apple

Good post JB and insightful. My daughter was recently studying U.S. History and specifically the Boston Tea Party, and I asked her whether the guys who boarded the boat and dumped the tea were terrorists or patriots. She got the point right away. They were patriots because we won.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and thats the way its been forever. It is also why I predict that one day a representative of Al Queada will be at a conference table negotiating to control Saudi Arabia.

As for the US, this madness in Iraq is all spawned from some neoconservative plan hatched in 1996 that we go and create an empire for ourselves where the oil is. See Bob herbert's colum in today's (July 28th NY Times). Ans we all know what eventually happens to empires from history.

Well let's just hope that George W. Bush's bastard nephew doesn't end up running this empire someday.

Thanks alot dontom and Apple for the responses.

Let's see...we were patriots because we were fighting for the freedoms and liberties we enjoy today. Not to preserve some radical religious ideology that we instill through fear and violence.

Al Qaeda will only be legitimized by other governments that can benefit from it's help. As it was, the Taliban was only acknowledged by 1 or 2 nations as a legitimate government, to the rest of the world it was a rogue.

Yes, since I look to the NY Times, of all places, for objectivity and non-bias.

Didn't they print a few articles about our current President that were found to be false? The NY Times is probably the most prominant liberal paper in the US, even beating out the Washington Post. I certainly take everything with a grain of salt, much like I do anything involving the media

Though, for a neoconservative plan, we did a pretty good job of convincing people like John Kerry, Clinton, and Gore, who all said at one point or another that Saddam had to be removed, by force, if necessary.


The American patriots who sacrificed their lives and their livelihoods be seceding from Britain weren't terrorists - they were fighting for freedom from opression of King George.

Al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, and others like them cannot be considered freedom fighters, or patriots, or anything of the sort. People like Bin Laden fight to destroy both the Western way of life, the destruction of the Israeli state, and the imposition of their warped religious government and rule under a convoluted form of shari'a. They fight to opress the world, under their thumb, rather than fight for freedom. It is an insult to true patriots, like Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to even mention such a statement.

Double J, you profound lack of historical knowledge is profoundly evident.

First, the American colonists were not fighting for the freedom we enjou today. They were fighting because they didnt like being taxed. If they had been given six seats in Parliament, they were willing to stand down. The freedoms we enjoy today are the result of evolving changes in the law and the constitution (yes I am saying that original intent advocates dont know what they are talking about). When this country first started, only men who owned property could vote. The Senate was appointed. Blacks counted as 3/5's of a person. We were committing genocide against Indians.

Slavery would not be abolished for another 90 years.
Women would not get the right to vote for another 150 years.
The application of the Bill of Rights to the states would not be the law of the land for another 91 years, and the enforcement of that would not happen for another 170 years.
Civil rights and universal voting rights would not be legislated for another 190 years, as would be the first recognition of the right to privacy (which you people are still attacking).

If you are going to state your opinion, please base it on facts and not your delusional thinking.

And they were not given those six seats...so they fought for independence, or let's say FREEDOM from rule of The British Crown. By signing the Declaration of Independence, they were committing treason since at the time they were still under British rule and would have been executed had they lost the war. (Several of the signers WERE executed...)

They were fighting for freedom.

Of course they couldn't possibly envision the type of freedoms we enjoy 200+ years later and would probably roll over in their graves if they knew women could own property let alone vote!!

But still, they were fighting for freedom and whatever atrocities and injustices and fights for equality have occurred along the way (and yes, there have been many) ... we most certainly DO enjoy the fruits of that fight even today.

Carry on, Double-J !!

Apple

This from someone who said the original post was too long to read! Kinda like the Godfather novel I guess.

History certainly lends a different perspective to things. Please look back at the propaganda from WW2, where the Japanese were stereotypically depicted, and with great racial bias. Or how the Chinese were treated (it was socially acceptable to eat "chink food" or take your clothes to be cleaned by the "chink"), or how blacks were treated to a completely different set of "equal" long after slavery was abolished, or how it was perfectly okay to refer to your female office workers as "girls" ("Have your girl call me to set up an appointment"). Imagine saying those things now? And how long ago were the words "smoking section" unheard of? You just smoked anywhere. And when did everyone get a cellphone and a computer? And these are things in our very RECENT history.

Every year, generations unfold in directions unimaginable to the one before it.

Good comeback :rolleyes: !!

Apple

This from someone who said the original post was too long to read! Kinda like the Godfather novel I guess. [/b][/quote]and THIS from someone who said they were leaving

and THIS from someone who said they were leaving [/QB][/QUOTE]


Touche' you got me!

Pssht, I guess all those history classes I take as a history major mean nothing. Damn!

By the way, your profound use of the word profound is so utterly profound that it leads me to believe that your lack of a thesaurus is causing your vocabulary to become monotonous.

Well, after the French and Indian war, and the Treaty of Paris, the Colonists weren't seeing all of the benefits they were promised by the British. The British did try to recoup losses from the war, however, by instituting massive taxes on the colonists, so you're partially correct. Both the Sugar and Stamp Acts were legitimate motivations for angst with Britain. And yes, "no taxation without representation," the classic rhyme taught in elementary school as the reasonings behind the American Revolution. Surprising as it may be for you, Dontomasso, history does go deeper than your daughters 8th grade government class, or whatever grade she is in.

The Proclamation of 1763 forbade the colonists to develop and live west of the Appalachins? Wouldn't that fall under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property," as John Locke said? The move to the west, and it's "garden of eden" qualities, were a huge motivating factor in declaring independance from Great Britain.

Here is an excerpt from the Stamp Act congress, which leads me to believe many of the rights we appreciate today are a direct result from the original Revolutionary movement, and not just "taxation."

How about some Thomas Jefferson, for you?

Hmm. But it's still all taxes, right?

Which, some may argue, is a good rule. Not the fact that other races, or women were excluded, but that they must own property.

Hmm. You're point? I still see the Revolutionaries fighting for freedom from Britain, and for the independance to live in a society with the rights we enjoy today. But you're going to argue semantics with me, about how long it took to institute these rules? Hell, John Madison didn't even want a focking Bill of Rights, why don't you toss that in there?

Heh. I thought the same thing when I read his post.

Because a razz is an excellent debating strategy... :rolleyes:

Well I see that the IRA has renounced violence, and everyone is having a big love fest. And just think 25 years ago they were "terrorists." The more things change the more they stay the same.

I am so brilliant I scare myself.

Gee, yes, especially when you ignore the OTHER 99% of the post.

Well, you know how some people don't like to pick up books that have no pictures.............


Apple

Reminds me of this pic...

I wholeheartedly doubt that the US would be so forgiving with Al Qaeda, as Israel is with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Look at how Arafat was the past few years - President Bush refused to acknowledge him as a legitimate leader, and his power was reduced to him living in the Israeli compound.

The only way these muslim terror organizations will gain diplomatic power is if they are legitimized by a current regime of great influence and power, which I doubt will happen.



I can still hear Dontomasso tooting his own horn.