Adam Pieniazek - Latest Comments in War on Terror Ends!

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:22:19 -0000

I do have dofollow turned on. Check out my comment policy to see when and how comments become dofollow.

In either case, if you're only commenting on people's blogs for the link back, you're doing it wrong. Comments should be made because you found the post interesting and want to join in the discussion.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Marketing Forums — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:10:26 -0000

I strongly recommend that you turn the No Follow off in your comment section.

I'll watch Google Webmaster Tools, and if the links don't show up after a couple of weeks --- I won't go back to that blog again.

Another suggestion: you should have a Top Commentator widget installed.

Do Follow and Top Commentator will ensure that you have a successful blog with lots of readers!

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Tony Lee — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:22:47 -0000

Hello Douglas, (and all)

The War on terror is a sensitive subject for many, and I find the comments here quite interesting. I keep an open mind at all times when it comes to this subject, great comments and opinions on both sides of the house! (In Feb 2005, I retired from the military with just over 26 years of active duty service)

Yes Douglas, the U.S. has established military bases in just about about every corner of the world. As far as criminal jurisdiction goes, the SOFA is in place in all foreign countries occupied by U.S. forces. (Status of Forces Agreement).

This agreement simply states that U.S. courts have initial jurisdiction of crimes involving a service member, against another service member. There have however, occurred crimes against local nationals by service members. Each of these types of (major) crimes are looked at case by case by both the military and host nation to determine jurisdiction or legal authority. In almost all cases, the host nation has the final say so and the service member is tried under host nation laws. If the host nation refuses or waives prosecution, the service member is then tried under the U.C.M.J. (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Most end up being the latter.

Those of us who serve in the military must keep in mind that as we serve abroad, we also represent the united States as diplomats who must set an example. Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples even under the strict conditions of the military who fail to follow the rules.

The war on terror? Well, I guess you say that I've seen much of it first hand, from the Cold War in Europe, to "Operation Desert Storm", to Operation "Enduring Freedom" to "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Whether it be our current world condition, or twenty years from now, there will always be those who try to influence their beliefs on others. We can only hope that perhaps someday they will realize that violence is not the answer.

Hope this helps..

<abbr>Tony Lees last blog post..Ben Hogan Headcovers</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:20:55 -0000

I did not use circular logic, you did. We are NOT killing them because they are not like us, we are killing them in self defense.

And they will tell that this is true if you pay attention to many of them. They have stated in the media that their goal is global domination and the destruction of all those who do not worship their god. They have said this over and over again, and every time they do, another American says we should be nice to them.

The US has bases all over the world in the name of peace, not domination. We have bases in Germany, but is US law in force their? We have bases in Japan, but I can tell you that if a Marine breaks Japanese law, he goes to a Japanese prison. And if Japan or Germany tell us to leave, we will leave.

And if you get the head of a terrorist organization in a room, and he believes you and agrees with you, he will simply be replaced by another.

<abbr>Douglas Ragans last blog post..The Undaunted Dozen</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:47:53 -0000

Hehe, it would be quite the scene if I somehow got the head of the terrorist organizations and coalition forces in one room and made that argument, though if such a situation occurred and both sides used logic and ration instead of emotion perhaps my argument would hit home...one can dream, eh?

As for the second part of your comment, in essence you're saying that there exists a small group of people unlike the rest of us who believe they need to kill us because we're not like them and the only way to deal with these people, who are not like us, is to kill them. Well, isn't that what you're saying the terrorists are doing (killing people who are not like them). If we go out and kill this small group of people for not being like us, are we not doing exactly the same thing that we're killing them for? That's a pretty impressive piece of circular logic you've outlined there, are you by chance a lawyer? Anyway, we can make the claim that we're only protecting ourselves (by killing them before they kill us), but they make the same justifications. We can sit here and say we're only killing them because they're killing us but terrorists make the same exact claim. To me, that highlights the absurdity of both sides. Perhaps I'm just too much of an optimist and should face reality that war is a part of the human condition but then again we wouldn't have had this great discussion if that was the case.

As for dominating the world, the reality is terrorists are far from being a dominating force, if any party involved is dominating it's the USA. We're the ones with military bases all over the world. I hope I don't come across as defending terrorists/terrorism, because I'm not. I simply don't believe that either side is clearly right or justified. Both sides are responsible for innocent deaths, deaths that could have been avoided. Perhaps I'm being a bit too abstract in my thinking, but the logic that these people are bad because they kill, so we must kill them doesn't make sense to me. If you're saying it's a kill or be killed world, well that might be true but does that make it right to kill? Or do we live in a world where necessity dictates what is morally right?

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:16:48 -0000

"If both sides took all the energy and resources used to fight each other and instead focused it domestically to improve education and living standards, all of us would be better off."

Tell them that, see how it works.

Here is the reality, at least from the perspective of the actual world. There have always and will always be horrible people in the world who believe for one reason or another that they need to kill anyone not like them. There will always be people who believe they need to dominate the world.

The only way to deal with these people is to kill them.

<abbr>Douglas Ragans last blog post..The Undaunted Dozen</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:20:33 -0000

Here's what it really boils down to, Douglas, at least from my perspective. In this conflict, neither side is truly innocent, nor is either side right. If both sides took all the energy and resources used to fight each other and instead focused it domestically to improve education and living standards, all of us would be better off. Instead, we've become stuck in an eye for an eye battle whether each side has vowed to keep fighting until the other side is vanquished from the earth, which realistically is near impossible to achieve.

The main point of this post was to note that both sides should stop being terrified of each other (which also requires both sides to stop attacking each other) and to move forward to a better day for all of us.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:09:47 -0000

1) But we were attacked because of the first gulf war and our other excursions in the Middle East over the years. Even the 9/11 Commission stated that 9/11 occurred because the U.S. had a presence in the Middle East. If we didn't go there, they wouldn't have attacked us here, and we wouldn't have gone to war with them, again.

2) I may be wrong here but I do not believe that all the people in Guantanamo are there because they shot at soldiers or Marines. Many of them are there without being charged with any crime, without having had a trial. Even if they are guilt of some crime it is simply wrong and completely against American ideals to jail them indefinitely without charging them and without giving them a fair trail.

3) The United States is/was under heavy surveillance Douglas. Part of this is us accepting this surveillance (GPS, facebook etc.), and part of it is covert government surveillance. To say that the NSA only placed terrorists under surveillance is giving the NSA and our technology too much credit. The nature of watching communication lines for terrorist activities means we are all under watch to some extent, especially when terrorism is so loosely defined.

4) The federal government spends money on everything, not just defense. Take a look at the budget. Besides, the point still applies, if the federal government did not spend so much money on "defense" (I don't consider it defense when we're attacking people on foreign soil, to me that's a clear case of offense, whether justified or not) there would be more money left over for education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

5) By caving on civil rights issue such as surveillance and Guantanamo we are giving in to terror.

6) Perhaps Douglas, but the 9/11 attacks only required a small group of people. Are you saying that the terrorists don't have 20-30 people to send over here for another attack attempt? There's been less attacks because they would have less impact after 9/11. If we're already in a terrified state, the terrorist really has nothing to gain by attacking, however once we're lulled back into feeling safe we also become vulnerable to more attacks. In either case, I hope that these attacks and our responsive wars become a historic note and do not occur going forward.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:59:27 -0000

"so does dropping bombs on innocent civilians"

Something that happens during war, if we had not been attacked, there would have been no war.

"jailing people indefinitely with no rights and no alleged crimes"

You shoot at soldiers and Marines, you go to jail.

"putting an entire country under surveillance"

You should have a conversation with whoever did that and please let me know what country this is so I never move there.

"spending immense amounts of money on wars overseas while bridges crumble at home (and so on)"

The Federal government spends money on defense, state governments build bridges.

"My point is we can't give in to the terror, that is essentially what terrorists want, for us to be terrified and stay home in our underground bunkers."

We haven't done this, we have tracked them down and killed them.

"If a terrorists only goal is to kill, then relatively speaking they have failed. Don't get me wrong here, the thousands of deaths caused by terrorists is tragic, but when looked at relative to all other causes of death terrorism is very, very low on the causes of death list."

Because we have killed so many of them and prevented them from attacking us again.

<abbr>Douglas Ragans last blog post..The Undaunted Dozen</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:15:20 -0000

Sure Douglas, people flying planes into buildings causes terror...so does dropping bombs on innocent civilians, jailing people indefinitely with no rights and no alleged crimes, putting an entire country under surveillance, spending immense amounts of money on wars overseas while bridges crumble at home (and so on). My point is we can't give in to the terror, that is essentially what terrorists want, for us to be terrified and stay home in our underground bunkers.

If a terrorists only goal is to kill, then relatively speaking they have failed. Don't get me wrong here, the thousands of deaths caused by terrorists is tragic, but when looked at relative to all other causes of death terrorism is very, very low on the causes of death list. Personally, I believe a terrorists' goal is to instill fear, while a murderer's goal is to kill. In that sense they are an even more dangerous enemy, as fear is relatively easy to achieve compared to massive amounts of death.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:51:03 -0000

The goal of a terrorist is to kill. People are afraid of being killed.

<abbr>Douglas Ragans last blog post..Pelosi Returns From The Vatican Wood Shed</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Tony Lee — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:44:32 -0000

The goal of a terrorist is instill fear. Take fear out of the mix, and their mission has failed.

<abbr>Tony Lees last blog post..What it is Your Favorite Designer Handbag?</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:54:17 -0000

Terror may be a state of mind, but it has a cause. Sometimes it is caused by external influences, such as people flying airplanes into buildings and blowing up Navy ships.

<abbr>Douglas Ragans last blog post..Pelosi Returns From The Vatican Wood Shed</abbr>

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:50:34 -0000

I think you're right Samuel, we must remember that terror is a state of mind, a feeling, and not a term we should apply loosely to the world at large.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Samuel — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:45:46 -0000

I think some of them want us to be terrified! and they are doing nothing but bomb our minds with some terror ideas...

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:05:28 -0000

Douglas, I just realized I never responded back to your comment.

I like the compromise, as long as there is a way to verify election results, which we both seem to believe could be much improved.

I also agree with you about pork being one of the biggest, if not biggest, issues with our Federal government. When you look at the sum of money that our government spends it's amazing that we don't have more to show for it. I think a law requiring simple laws might be the answer here (yes, that is a bit of an oxymoron). Pork is so abundant in our government because each new bill is literally hundreds and hundreds of pages long, too long for the average citizen to be able to review. If laws were short and to the point, politicians would have less places to hide their projects.

I think we're both fiscally conservative Douglas and thus I can agree with you that the federal government should be much, much smaller. However, I'm socially liberal and think parts of our government could be expanded (healthcare, environmental protection, corporate watch groups) while overall the federal government still would shrink (if we're going to have a huge government, I'd rather it spend money domestically on social programs instead of abroad on military and aid to rich countries -- Israel and Egypt received the most aid from the U.S.). In either case, returning more power to the states would be preferable to the behemoth we have now in D.C.

Many of my rants don't make sense! ;)

The point I wanted to make with the dictator and oil parts is that Bush and Cheney benefit from an increase in the price of oil as they hold shares in oil companies and Halliburton. Before I go on another rant, let me just sum it up by saying that there is a clear conflict of interest for Bush & Cheney to be running this show and using private contractors to get oil and dole out Iraq oil contracts to big oil companies.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:58:22 -0000

Thanks for the note Desires. It's not so much about living without or outside of fear as much as not living a life built around trying to insulate myself from fear. Of course, the best way to do so is to simply accept that a fear emotion exists and remain fearless by understanding it is simply our brain and nerve system interpreting our surroundings and not being able to confidently assess the safety of a situation. That's a long way of saying fear is a state of mind and a naturally occurring emotion. The natural type of fear (wow that's a big angry bear, this situation is uncertain, I must act quickly and creatively to survive) is OK as it is temporary and natural but staying terrified is something no one should accept.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Desires Middle East Peace — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:11:00 -0000

Hi Adam,

My interest in your post is not the War on Terror, but the fact that you declare you will live without fear. I am fascinated by the concept of living outside a realm of fear and not allowing fear to overtake our lives. It's an interesting concept to apply this to the War on Terror.

Still, I think people are deathly afraid of terrorists. I can't say I blame them, but I wholeheartedly join you in living outside of fear.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:48:57 -0000

Sloppiness of elections is status quo for the US government, which is why it should be smaller not bigger. How about a compromise? Why don't we stick to the electronic machines, but then have the results posted in the fashion you mention? This way the votes can't be hacked by every tom dick and harry. If they are hacked, there will be a trail.

I believe that the biggest challenge to keeping our politicians in DC honest is the issue of pork. Did you know that once they get a project through, they can continue to allocate the same amount of money every year after that without it even becoming an issue? Alaska got their bridge to nowhere money even after a stink was raised because they never went back in to take it from them. Alaska simply used the money for another project the next year.

Terrorism existed long before America and McDonalds. The people who do this thrive in countries that lack freedoms and education. They are angry and they really aren't certain why. So when someone tells them that it is the evil American empire, they fall in line. The interesting thing about the Iraq war is that it has allowed Muslims all over the globe to see how brutal the terrorist really are. They now see the reports about Muslims blowing up other Muslims. This is why if you discount Iraq, terrorist attacks are actually down worldwide. Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece about this not long ago.

You can fight people who use a tactic and do things to prevent another attack. We did in fact capture the man who planned 9-11 and have killed others who helped him. We have shown others the true nature of the terrorists and have also beaten many of them into submission. We have also prevented additional attacks against our country since 9-11. Now I know that you will tell me that we haven't prevented anything and that this is just what the government wants me to believe. But as much as I doubt my government, I do give them the benefit of the doubt over the terrorists.

Your rant about a dictatorship makes no sense. A dictator isn't behind the scenes. I won't defend Halliburton, but anyone who thinks that this war is about driving up the price of oil doesn't know much about economics. Being in the business of commodities, I happen to know about things like increased demand from India and China. I also know a bubble when I see one, and much of the current price of oil is from hedge funds hitting the buy button with their clients money. And even if this were true, how does that make him a dictator? The warrantless interception of messages from foreign locations is the Constitutional right of the President. This is according to multiple court rulings and has been backed by FISA judges. They actually sat in front of the same Congress members who still complain and told them this.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:06:20 -0000

True Douglas, neither of us can prove our elections are fair or fraudulent, but the sloppiness of past elections only serves to further deter some people from voting. My perspective is that a true democracy has all (or as close as possible to all) voters participating and when the elections are not completely transparent, voters will not trust the system and will simply not participate. Our sloppiest election in recent history occurs in a state where the eventual President's brother governs, but it's just a super-rare coincidence?

You're right that the lesser of two evils voting strategy has directly caused many of the issues we face today. I used that strategy in '04 and vowed to never again let such an argument hijack my vote. In this year's primaries I voted for Ron Paul to show for the record that I oppose the viewpoints of the other major candidates and support Ron's small government (to an extent). Though I was realistic and felt Ron wouldn't win my state's primary I still voted for him, because that is the only way to truly make your vote count. I really hate the argument that voting for someone not in the mainstream Demopublican/Republocrat party is throwing your vote away. Voting for someone you don't really believe in is throwing your vote away.

I'll have to argue though that there are conspiracies and that they are not even hidden that well. I use the word conspiracy in the literal sense, people in power plot against the majority of people to ensure they keep that power. A lot of the people in Congress conspire against the public everyday by sneaking pork into bills and trading away our liberties for security. Looking for conspiracies is a duty we the public must perform to safeguard the republic from tyrants. The media calls conspiracy theorists lunatics so that anyone questioning the mainstream view is disregarded, thus allowing the mainstream view to be hijacked by the elite and corrupted.

Terrorism exists because America sent its troops across the entire world and American capitalism put a McDonald's on every street corner. Even though huge groups of people in certain regions simply wanted to be left alone, we continued to insist that American corporations be allowed to infiltrate every part of the world. These huge groups of people were opposed to this American occupation of the world and fought back using dirty guerrilla warfare tactics. Once a few thousand Americans died on American soil, we over reacted and killed hundreds of thousands of other people because we couldn't root out the few who conspired to successfully attack us. In essence, if you don't believe conspiracies then the terrorists lured us into a trap and are now showing the whole world how brutal we truly are, hence why the world is skirting away from America and its corporate-military super-behemoth.

You can't fight people who use a tactic for they can easily change their tactic or hide it. The terrorist knew they could not win a war on American soil, so they drew us towards them, where our modern machinery would be neutralized by desert guerilla warfare. They've succeeded, as we're still trying to find and capture or kill these terrorists even though we've already killed way, way, way, way more people than the terrorists ever did.

If this is not a false war, then our executive, congress, and military clearly did not realize that our problem was not offensive but defensive. Before 9/11, during 9/11 and post 9/11 we could and can bomb the heck out of many countries, but we're pretty much no safer against terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. If we really wanted to "win" this "war on terror(ists?)", we'd bring home every U.S. soldier and put every military resource we have into securing our borders and airspace, not bombing deserts halfway across the world.

The warrant-less domestic surveillance program is not a constitutional right. If it's a constitutional right for the president to spy on us, then I say it's also our right to spy on our president. Let's see who has more skeletons in the closet, though Mr. Bush has a hell of a lot more closets than the average American. King George has already instituted his dictatorship. The best form of tyranny (for the tyrant) is the one hidden from view. Bush learned from his grandpa that you can't openly overthrow the government, so he's done so behind the scenes. Who has benefited from the last seven years of warfare? Oil companies and corporate militaries. Who worked for the oil companies and corporate military (Haliburton) before seizing the white house? King George and Prince Dick of course. The Democratic Congress was elected to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan but they've all bowed down before the Republocrat-Demopublican tyrants for fear of disappearing.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Anonymous — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:48:50 -0000

By the way, the war on terror isn't a war against a tactic. It's a war against the people who are trying to use that tactic against the US. And it isn't a false war used to push surveillance and dictatorship for the common good. The surveillance program that caused so much controversy was deemed a constitution right of the president in Truong vs the US back in the 80s. This is something that no one likes to talk about of course because it has that smell of the truth. We make no mention of the fact that FISA judges refer to this case when they are asked for their opinions.
And a dictatorship? Really. When is King George planning on getting this done exactly? He seems to be running out of time. I'm sure that this time next year we will be given different information on this conspiracy.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:42:12 -0000

Adam, I can't prove anything to you about your vote, and you can't prove that your vote wasn't counted. In the system you pitch, you are trying to get a country full of people to understand an online system that they don't understand. Getting people to vote online is almost impossible, and then getting them to go back later to verify is even more impossible. And even if we did, there is nothing to keep a vote tally of over 100 million from being misrepresented.

The point I was trying to make was that the problem with our democracy isn't a cover-up or a conspiracy to make sure your vote doesn't count. The problem is that too many people are looking for the conspiracy instead of putting real effort into researching the issues and promises of the person for whom they are voting.

Do you want to hear the real conspiracy, if there is one? It isn't a diebold effort to steal your vote. It isn't the screwup of Florida. It's a country of people who believe that they have to vote for one guy just to keep someone worse from winning the prize. I can't tell you how many blogs and comments I read from people saying that they would like to have voted for someone like Duncan Hunter, but didn't do so because they don't think he can win the general election. They were convinced that it wouldn't matter, so they voted for someone else.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Adam Pieniazek — Sun, 25 May 2008 18:53:04 -0000

@Douglas, There will be hackers in paper and electronic voting just the same. With an open, completely published election system the hackers could be discovered by the public, media, watch groups, or government. In a closed election system, like the one employed in the United States of America no-one can truly verify the results.

Prove to me that my vote in 04 or 06 was counted correctly...you can't. If the elections were done online and public, I could look up my number and see that the correct vote was captured. Verifiability is the first step to tumbling the current corrupt and belied system.

Just the same, a massive issue with the societal climate currently in this country is the lack of investigative or analytical though in the mainstream. I don't believe the average American's true voice is heard or shouted loud enough and as a result our mainstream is artificial, an attempt by the elite to talk down to us.

@barryb, you don't. The people in charge are trying to create Orwell's perpetual war and are using every threat, real or imagined, to push surveillance and dictatorship for the common good.

Thanks for the great comments Douglas, barryb and everyone.

Re: War on Terror Ends!

barryb. — Sat, 24 May 2008 19:15:38 -0000

I'm with you. How the hell do you declare war agains a tactic???? WTF. Thanks for saying what people need to hear.

barry

Re: War on Terror Ends!

Douglas Ragan — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:12:37 -0000

Adam.
The flaws of voting online are as obvious as the flaws of banking online. The difference is that you invite more hackers to the fold.

And the problem with our voting system isn't diebold. The problem with the system is that most of the people in this country believe what they are told to believe. This is why many people believe that Bush is pushing up the price of oil. This is why people believe that tax cuts caused a credit crises. This is why no one pays attention to the Iraqi general who tells us that Saddams weapons systems were hidden in Syria. This is why people think that we can solve all of life's problems by raising taxes. And it is why people think that elections are being rigged by diebold.

Politicians don't need to use new technology to rig elections. They will stick to the old fashion methods. Elections are won by those who tell the best lies about whatever people are complaining about the most. The problem isn't diebold, the problem is the belied systems of the people pushing the buttons.