quote:

---

American national security

---

Goodness, start by talking globally, it's always more diplomatic!
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Well, we could always just ignore them. People would die, but at the same time, if we don't react to terrorist attacks in the ways terrorists want then they are likely to get discouraged.

Or we could provide the would-be terrorists with an alternative, less-violent method to pursue their agenda. I'm sure if they felt they could stop the U.S. without killing innocents and blowing themselves up, they would much prefer that approach.

Personally I prefer a combination of that last approach and the so-called "left's solution." The thing is, we should not be caving in and nobody should be viewing it as that. We should merely be realizing we have been mistaken in our foreign policy after the Cold War, even if the thing that provoked that realization is terrorist attacks. There is a difference there, and an important one at that.

It's really either that, ignore them and simply accept some terrorist attacks will occur (an option that shouldn't be ruled out so quickly), or continue under this illusion that trying to manipulate the world to prevent all terrorism is doing anything other than provoke more terrorism. Or so I say.

[ September 03, 2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 

---

Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
 
I have no comprehensive solution (as of yet) but I'd argue that a good starting point would be the Wahabbi religous schools (madrassas I believe) scattered throughout the Middle East. It would certainly help stymie the flow ideological extremists somewhat. I'm not sure how one would go about shutting them down though. Perhaps:
1) Bomb them to oblivion (horrible idea, would start a war with Islam)
2) Finance a better alternative in the area (would be very helpful, but try getting American taxpayers to get behind that)
3)Lean on the Saudis to stop paying them money (would work in the short-term but funding would start coming from somewhere else eventually)

Beyond that, I have no clue. But you might as well begin somewhere...
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
Terrorism exists because it works. It's too late to start ignoring it now. I think the best idea is to remove the structures and institutuions that support them.

*SATIRE WARNING*
It's better to err to the right. The left's way is sissy.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I think the "problems" with the "right's solution" are wrong:
1. U.S. troops actually have a history of successful nation building, in Europe and Japan after WWII and in Korea. Those cases took decades and it is unreasonable to expect anything less now, just because we can win wars quicker doesn't mean we can make nations appear magically out of thin air.
2. Both the Taliban and the Baath Party had no real soverneignty in any sense.
3. The last part may be true but it shouldn't prevent us from doing what is right.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 

quote:

---

*SATIRE WARNING*
It's better to err to the right. The left's way is sissy.

---

You're starting to be really funny, Ryan.
 

---

Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 
Some people have a completely skewed concept of terrorism.

It's a tactic, a way of fighting a war. Why do people - well, let's be honest - why do Americans talk about combatting terrorism? It completely misses the point. You can't fight "terrorism" any more than you can fight naval combat. Because both are a series of tactics and stratagies. It's an abstract concept. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians for political ends. How can you eliminate that?
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
The same way you fight the use of germ warfare, or land mines. You destroy the institution. Naval warfare is a poor analogy, as it is more akin to a theater or war than a method of war.

A skilled general can remove methods of warfare from his enemy.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
We aren't really fighting terrorism so much as we are the people who support it therefore we reduce the terrorism that exist. It is hard to get rid of a concept, but just we can't get rid of genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit it as much as possible.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Geoff, I think this thread is a great idea, but somewhere back in the dusty recesses of my brain, I seem to recall that you did a thread like this right before we invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. Am I misremembering? If you did write one back when, I think it would be kind of neat to see what was said and how it holds up to the test of time.

Of course, if I am imaginating all of this, just ignore me.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Okay, here's both of my pennies:

Terrorism is a method of warfare, it's easier to deal with the groups that sponsor/use Terrorism as their method.

So many groups, so few resources. Let's look at the big ones:

Al Qaeda Give them what they want. Pull ALL of our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Next, pull all of our aid and support to Saudi Arabia away. Next, we'll need to get rid of our involvement with them, so completely ban trade with Saudi Arabia. No more oil, no more anything.

What will this accomplish? First off, it will eliminate an expensive hardship post for our troops. Other Persian Gulf states are much more receptive to us and our fighting forces (Qatar for example). The Saudi government will collapse in short order without our support and without our purchases of oil. Goodbye Beverly Hillbillies of the Middle East. Let the fundamentalists take over.

OPEC's biggest oil producer will also lose its biggest customer. Guess what, OPEC will turn on itself as the lesser members jockey for our business. OPEC goes under.

Hamas. et al: No longer interfere with Israel on this one. Continue support of Israel to maintain the relationship we have had with them and do it in no uncertain terms. Israel has recently switched its tactics from reprisals against the families of bombers to one of actively going after the leadership of Hamas and the PLO. Good, that's the exact right thing to do. Go after the cowards who send their children in to do the dirty, deadly work.

The PLO leadership has never, ever worried about the losses of its foot soldiers and has never, ever had to worry about threats to themselves. It's nice to see them sweat. Wipe them and their rhetoric out and the more moderate Palestinian population (those wishing to live their lives and raise their children) will come to the table and negotiate at lasting peace.

If that doesn't work, drop a precision munition on top of Arafat's workplace and take the old bastard out. He becomes a martyr but he's permanently taken out of the game. He's a figurehead, sure, but it drops him off the radar.

Iraqi Insurgents/Saddamist Holdouts: It's time to get the jackboots out. Follow our policy with Japan after WWII. Disarm the entire country of everything more dangerous than a paring knife. Start with voluntary turn ins and then start making house to house searches. Next impose a rule that anyone not part of the occupying force or a uniformed Police Officer will be shot on sight if they are carrying any weapon whatsoever, no matter who they are.

If you think America has a gun culture, you should see the Middle East...

Fix every infrastructure thing we can find: ONCE. Anything after that and the Iraqis have to do it themselves. You see, most of the Middle East never had to build their own modern civilization, they had it done for them off of the income of oil. They've never had to work for it, they place no real value on it. Fix it once and let them guard it or suffer their own consequences. Some things will be sabotaged again, but it becomes their problem, not ours. After a couple of power plants go down, the neighbors that once harbored the guerillas will turn them in for justice.

Fix it all once, disarm the country, make it a protectorate of the UN, help them establish an interim government and hold their first public/fair election and then get the heck out.

Afghanistan How do you rewrite a culture that has been this anarchic since time began? Smarter folks than me would have to figure it out.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
How did we disarm Japan after WWII? I honestly don't know. There however, the civillian popluation had been dealt a deeper psycholigical blow to their pride than in Iraq. Are the situations truly comparable?

AJ
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
I believe the "give them what they want" idea is flawed. They'll just upgrade their demands, until, as is their ultimate goal, we all become muslim. (That's what it means to be muslim extremist.)
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
1) Implement a successful media campaign not aimed at American Troops or American voters, but at the people who live in the mid-east.

The US has the most powerful culture in existance. Our romance novels and cheesey movies were found in the homes of our enemies as prized pocessions.

We have advertising agencies that have hypnotized us into believing Beer Drinking is attractive to the oppisitte sex and will result in us getting the cuties.

We have spin doctors that show us Global Warming is not happening, and it is happening so much but not because of emmisions, and it is so powerful our cutting back on SUV's would not effect it anyway.

The religious fanatics on the other side offer their followers death, women locked away in their homes and lives of strict denial and sacrifice. We can offer them Remote Control 52" TV's with DVD and surround sound, JLo in Spandex and Internet Porn.

Lets spend a billion to combat not the terrorists or the threats, but the messages (yes the Meme's) of the terrorists.

You cannot defeat the small terrorist cells with guns, missiles or troops (targets) in uniforms. You can with ideas.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Are terrorists ramen or varlese? Are they human beings just like us but with different backgrounds or are they bent on evil for evil's sake?

I think that this is a central issue. Is there a causal why to terrorism and can we figure out what it is?

Our western Christian society has a long history of at least as bad atrocities as the new Islamic terrorists. Why is it better now?

Perhaps there are goals unstated and influences unknown. Sometimes what people say they want, what they really believe deep down is their goal, is not really true.

Christians used to want to live in a world of only Christians. Many of them still do. Why aren't they killing or forcibly converting everyone else anymore? Has the doctrine changed much, or has their been a change in the social environment?

On the other hand, do we have the leverage to work on the real issues, or can the best we expect is to play the prevention and containment game? Just because there are more effective theoretical solutions doesn't mean that we have the resources to implement those solutions. Sometimes, you have to go with the best you've got.
 

---

Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
 
The problem is that "the" right always tends to mischaracterize "the" left's solution.

it's absurd to even call it those things, because there are democrats that support "the" right's solution, and republicans who don't support "the" right's solution.

First things first, we're past the point at which we can "give" terrorists what they want. Whatever that is. At this point war has been declared against al Qaeda, and theres no going back, we've started a blood feud.

If people want to stop future terrorists from cropping up, a massive pr campaign needs to be launched in the middle east, and people need to start making concessions to the palestinians. The first way to releave tention in the muslim world, is to find an EQUITABLE solution to the issue of a palestinian state. I.e. one which is autonomous.

However, since neither of those seems likely to happen (particularly with a republican government), "the" left (whoever they are) are going to get dragged kicking and screaming into "the" right's solution.

Don't give terrorist what they want, give people who become sympathetic to terrorist what they want, and they won't shelter terrorists.
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
Dan, your'e making me think of Moab and Balaam.

Though you might be right, that might do 'em in.
 

---

Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
 
Dan Rocks.

That is the best idea I have yet heard. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Dan, you make some good points, but I don't think that the Geneva Conventions are ready for our most devastating style of warfare... the marketing campaign!

But honestly, your idea really and truly bears a lot of merit. They want a cultural war, we give them one of such power that they have no way of defending themselves. It's like taking out New Guinea with nukes... not a fair fight.

Because let's face it, we've studied strategies and tactics, we've created the most awe-inspiring weapons known to mankind and we have the best trained armed forces in the world. But they aren't much use in a battle of mindsets. Your idea, however, is probably a much, much more effective one. As a country, we've done much more work on determining the mindset of consumers and the opening of new markets.

When talking about the Japanese occupation, it's easy to think just of the military side of it. But we all know now that it was the economic/cultural side of it that really won out. Japan, thanks to our donations and prodding, started out emulating American society and then, one day, it just sort of blossomed. They almost overnight went from semi-backwards to an economic power with a vibrant and expansive culture. They've retained much of their heritage and kept moving forward, they've retained their own rights of religion, improved the rights of their own people and have made numerous positive contributions on the world stage.

So yes, open these places up to full on media blitzes and investment. It might look like buying them off but it's really a shot at bringing them around to our way of thinking. A way of thinking that isn't so bad.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Btw, the "give them what they want" idea that I put forth wasn't about caving in. It was about handing them enough of the rope they had fought for to hang themselves with.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

I believe the "give them what they want" idea is flawed. They'll just upgrade their demands, until, as is their ultimate goal, we all become muslim.

---

A better but similar alternative is to give them what they are entitled to.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I thought that many religious group's idea was to convert everyone to their religion -- yours included, popatr?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Do you see LDS suicide bombers?

Many people are Muslim today because their ancestors were actually forced to be Muslim. Convert or die. That is how a religion that started in only 600 AD came to be so dominant, not because of its superior philosophy.

_Extremist_ Muslims believe you should either convert or die.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I wasn't condoning the methods of extremist islam, or comparing them to LDS's. I was noting the similar goals, when it was in fact the goal of islam that popatr criticized. Furthermore, the post that popatr was in particular criticizing also did not condone the methods of extremist islam.

And I find your side point highly unpersuasive. Islam is only 600 years younger than christianity (not much; and judaism is NOT the same religion, or at least is as much an ancestor to islam as to christianity), and the christian church also forced many people to convert or die. In fact, I'd guesstimate the numbers of people who were forced are pretty similar. Most people who converted to Islam in the great expansion were of tribal religions whose leaders (usually the leaders of the tribe) converted and brought their tribe with them. Not dissimilarly to christianity, though when much of europe was converted the tribes had become towns, and civil leaders converting led to the general conversion of the populace.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Amka, give the LDS another, what, 1200 years? Christianity went through the crusades and Islam is having it's problems now, which pretty much correspond time wise. So, I figure in about 1200 years LDS is going to be a big pain the butt.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Actually it is against the teachings of the Koran to convert by the sword.

However, when the Islamic armies conquered a territory, they did have legal and what they percieved as moral imperatives to 1) stamp out paganism and 2) give preferential treatment to their Islamic bretheren. Hence, if the only way you could get a fair legal hearing, a steady supply of business and any education for your children was to convert--you converted.
 

---

Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
 
It's not the muslims' desire to convert us that I was criticising. When you think your religion is right, that's the only reasonable course. I object to the extremist view which is, basically as Amka said, convert or die.

And I was making fun of people who are all eager to give them what they want. Conversion being the ultimate extreme (and indeed likely to produce some pretty good will). But that (and maybe some other concessions) would be so... how you say?... lame, I guess.

If you convert to get along with mormons, I will make fun of you just as much.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

The right's solution: Attack countries that harbor terrorists, or that might willingly provide weapons to terrorists. Take them over and replace their despots with democracies.

Problems: U. S. troops are ill-suited to nation-building, can develop serious morale problems, and creating a successful democracy is far from a guarantee. Violating a nation's sovereignty is dangerous to world politics. Allies with interests in the attacked nation, or who think less of the threat of terrorism from the attacked nation, will disapprove and work against us.

The left's solution: Give the terrorist nations/cultures what they want, and build goodwill. Do not use force unless approved by allies.

Problems: Terrorists of all stripes are likely to be encouraged if we give in to demands. Some enemies only respond to force or the threat of force. Abdicating our interests to other nations could be seen as vulnerability or impotence by our enemies.

---

quote:

---

If Hussein had no relationship with Al-Queda then why were there terrorist camps found in a nation ruled with an iron fist?

---

quote:

---

Why was a senior Al-Queda agent found in Baghdad? [. . .] If Osama and Saddam were "blood enemies" then why hasn't Osama launched attacks against Iraq?

---

quote:

---

As of now the US has constructed a democracy in its beginning stages in Afgahnistan and Iraq is on its way to free elections.

---

quote:

---

Why were multiple documents found linking Saddam with terrorism?

---

quote:

---

Democracies do not appear overnight. Even America's took years to develop. Every other nation has slowly evolved over many years. In fact the only countries that didn't become democratic like that were the ones rebuilt after WWII and they still took the better part of a decade. If anything America needs to develop some patience, the media was ready to declare the war lost halfway through because the drive temporarily stalled. Still we reached Baghdad in what was essentially "record time".

---

Wow. How very disjointed.

Democracy developed slowly in the United States because it took such a damn long time for liberals to take up and succeed in causes such as voting rights for non-landowners, women, and non-white races. We can give the Iraqis a democracy within the year -- there's nothing to "develop." The problem is, if we let them decide their own issues, they may very well decide against giving us (and more importantly, Bush's sponsors) cheap oil. Thus Iraq will remain under our direct control for probably several years, then be turned over to a puppet ruler who'll do exactly what the US wants him to do.

Ah, freedom.
 

---

Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
 
Maybe the United States should plan (secretly - word the U.S. government seems to lack the knowledge of) an attack that the middle east wouldn't expect in the least - hey, it might be a broad topic, but the U.S. hasn't been mentioned in a textbook for a while, and it'd be pretty cool to see it there... as long as it doesn't cost too many lives...


"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 

quote:

---

If Hussein had no relationship with Al-Queda then why were there terrorist camps found in a nation ruled with an iron fist?

---

quote:

---

Why was a senior Al-Queda agent found in Baghdad?

---

quote:

---

Why were multiple documents found linking Saddam with terrorism?

---

quote:

---

If Osama and Saddam were "blood enemies" then why hasn't Osama launched attacks against Iraq?

---

quote:

---

As of now the US has constructed a democracy in its beginning stages in Afgahnistan and Iraq is on its way to free elections.

---

quote:

---

Democracies do not appear overnight. Even America's took years to develop. Every other nation has slowly evolved over many years. In fact the only countries that didn't become democratic like that were the ones rebuilt after WWII and they still took the better part of a decade.

---

quote:

---

If anything America needs to develop some patience,

---

quote:

---

the media was ready to declare the war lost halfway through because the drive temporarily stalled. Still we reached Baghdad in what was essentially "record time".

---

The Media was on a feeding frenzy. The military acted appropriately, not caving into journalistic demands for new news every moment, and astounding victories every deadline.

I am disappointed that our politicians have not been so well disciplined. Instead they are panicing that we are loosing the peace and demand a quick and steady retreat from Iraq before anything can be rebuilt, or before it gets too expensive.

The smartest thing the Terrorists in Iraq are doing is destroying the Iraqi oil output. The US doesn't need the oil, but the Republicans need the Iraqi oil $$ to pay for what they thought would be a quick reconstruction. Instead that money will have to come out of the US, and we are already broke (whether it was the fault of the tax cut, or the big business theives that killed the stock market--like Enron, Arthor Anderson, World Com who's CEO's donated so hansomely to the Bush election fund, it looks bad for our President).

We will lose in Iraq, allowing it to fall to fanatical extremists because we won't want to pay the bill to repair it.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
What is the US doing that the terrorists want us to stop? The left will say "supporting Israel". The right will say "exporting materialism". I think I have to agree with those who say the only way we can satisfy them is by stopping being American.

LDS don't want everyone to join... only the elect.

By the way, LDS doesn't preach to muslim countries because if someone converted, it is believed their families could kill them without reprisal from the community. Though I would tend to say the answer to terrorism would be for more people on both sides to live their religions.

What puzzles me is how Arafat and Bin Laden don't sign up for suicide bombings, if they think they are so cool. Okay, I know it's been a while since Arafat openly condoned them in an English speaking forum, but you know what I mean. The leaders of terrorist cells just want their recruits to go out in a blaze of glory.

There's also the idea of using less oil. I'm not saying slash SUV's tires, but people willingly sacrificing for the greater good. America is good at that too. We are so committed to Israel because they are our island of loyalty in such a critical region. If the Middle East were less important to us (due to oil) Israel might take a more realistic approach to dealing with their issues.

Also, Arafat has survived so many assasination attempts it almost isn't funny. It's a myth that seems to have a lot of power, in the way it's being used by Hussein loyalists.

[ September 05, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

LDS don't want everyone to join... only the elect.

---

Wha-huh? That's not true.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
"only the elect"
people who want to. We don't have a lot of use for forced conscripts
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
so only the electing?

Okay, that's true.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
I think the point wasn't that you'd force them to join, but that you'd be ecstatic if everyone wanted to join.

Like I said, give it 1200 years and then we'll see if all y'all still feel that way. I'm betting shotgun converts will be just peachy then.

Oh, and if anyone is taking that seriously, don't. I'm just teasing my friends.
 

---

Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
 
Well, it looks like Geoff and others here might respond to anything that drives to take the desire to terrorize away peacefully from those have already engaged in violence as "giving in to the terrorists."

I don't think that's true however. I've seen a lot of national pride, nostalgia, etc. People even get indignant when they claim were are the most powerful country in thr world and we shouldn't "have to" put up with all this terror we're getting.

But lets look at what made us and keeps us as the most powerful country in the world:

Freedom and democracy.

These can only be present in non-opressive, open societies. Therefore, if we attempted to guard 100% against any possible vector of terrorism or attack, we would lose all freedom and democracy.

So, in reality, our position as the world's top country is due to the fact that we acknowledge we can't keep America safe completely by force, because that would destroy the idea of what we want our nation to be.

Therefore we must resort to peaceful solutions, and occasionally, swallow our pride and attempt peace even when the other side is engaging in violence.

People who don't understand this claim were would be showing weakness and "giving in." That is extremely immature and very unlike many of the religions those Hawks profess to believe.

[ September 05, 2003, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Lalo, I don't think your history goes farther than 1920. Kurdistan hasn't been a country for something like 80 years! How has the United States controlled that area if we didn't have anyone there? If we did have people there don't you think that would have been our second front? Beyond establishing no fly zones over that area to keep Saddam from dropping CHEMICAL WEAPONS on his own people, we did nothing else. Beyond that Saddam gave free reign to terrorists in his country. The fact that Al-Queda might be behind the most recent bombings in Iraq is more proof that Osama backed Saddam. With all the threats Osama made toward countries that supported us, surely he wouldn't refrain from attacking his "blood enemy" as well. Maybe, maybe, it was a US-USSR during WWII type alliance but that doesn't change Saddam's connection to terror.

King? What are you talking about? Abandoning the country? Again are you hallucinating? One of the airborne divisions, either the 82nd or 101st I can't remember, launched a major attack on Taliban positions on the eve of the air assualt on Baghdad. That division has not left and other divisions are still there. Actually, the Iraqi oil is already being turned over the Iraqis themselves.

You can't just make a democracy. You need a constitution or similar document, you need voting procedures, you need candidates.

The Al-Queda agent and documents have been found but its just one of those things that media likes to ignore.

Historically Republicans have not taken half measures. In the past two wars lead by Republican presidents the wars were over in quick succession. Look at what Democratic presidents have done. Clinton's refusal to allow real air support in Somalia resulted in the disaster in Mogadishu. The he pulled out immediately giving the enemy an undeserved victory. Lyndon Johnson formulated the wonderful strategy in Vietnam which didn't even give our soldiers a chance to win the war. Truman relieved McArthur of command when he actually did something right by fighting an agressive war which saved South Korea entirely. I don't see any reason to believe that GWB will do a 180 and abandon Iraq.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
As much as I treasure freedom and democracy I don't think either is the reason why we have risen to such prominence. Our greatest asset is our size, population, diverstiy, and the fact that the people who are here are the ones who actually wanted to do something with themselves. The lazy ones just stayed in the "old country", that doesn't mean everyone not in America is lazy but that the ones that did come weren't.
 

---

Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
 
Guess what, those people wouldn't have been ABLE to do anything with themselves if we were a police state with no freedom and the level of democracy we enjoyed in the past. All accomplishments America has made were directly allowed by such freedoms and democracy. Trying to seperate anything America has done from those two is impossible because it was the identity of America and the enabling factors.

[ September 05, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
Duragon, I'm not sure why you directed your post at me. There IS a difference between giving in to terrorists and achieving a diplomatic solution. I AM concerned that too many people on the left WOULD ignorantly give in to terrorists, believing they were achieving a diplomatic solution, while in reality, they were surrendering. But that doesn't mean that the only answer is bombs. Don't put words in my mouth here, and I won't do it to you in the marriage thread
 

---

Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
 
No words in your mouth, I was just responding to your stance about insurgents who have already started violent acts. IMO, diplomacy can be used to defuse already heated situations like this, and should not be labeled as "giving in" to terrorists who already started killing, terrorizing, etc.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm just teasing my friends.

---

quote:

---

What is the US doing that the terrorists want us to stop?

---

Many people are forgetting why our troubles started. Bin Laden helped the U.S. a really long time ago with a war (I don't remember exactly what he had to do with it ) and our government later assisted Iran in a war. But in the middle of war we were assisting Iran with, we just - stopped helping - went home -shooed - vamusca!! So Iran was left alone again when we had promised to help - yes, we helped, but it isn't very proper to back out in the middle of assisting someone.

This withdrawal pretty much began the future (if you can appreciate metaphorical phrases) for the U.S. While United States citizens probably don't think that attacking a country for backing out on you is the "American thing to do", and that's exactly it, it isn't. It was the "Iranian thing to do" at the time. When someone commits to helping, they should respect the cultural beliefs of the person/people they are helping. Our country very well knew that Iran wouldn't take kindly to us leaving them - would we take kindly to them leaving us in a time of need? No, and maybe we wouldn't attack them, but the point is that each country handles their problems differently, just as each person handles their struggles differently. So, the United States was ignorant (for lack of a better word that relates more closely to "stupid") to back out on Iran because we didn't know what the repercussions might be. When you commit to something, you finish it. Or at least that's the appropriate thing to do unless we want a bunch of loons and liars running the government (oops! I forgot, that's what we already have!!), but it seems that the government in the United States isn't what it could be. When I say this, I mean if we had someone decent running it.
Anyway, when we backed out on Iran, Iraq became involved and somehow Hussein - just a row of dominoes - I'm betting we only have about 2 left standing in the States. So you ask again, well, what are we doing to upset them? Just existing, I'm pretty sure. The Iranians and Iraqis don't shrug matters off and place them in the trivial pile - they're in the game to win. So we play the game across the board from them, and so far, neither one of us knows how to play.


"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"

[ September 05, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: wieczorek ]
 

---

Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
 
While we may think the "terrorists" are terrorizing us, to them, they're just serving their country - this whole problem started entirely with the United States being the problem. It was like sticking your arm in a cage with starving sharks in it. Like arming your tempermental friend with a knife and then making a fool out of him. Like I said before, while we would most definetly get angry with someone else for backing out on us, we wouldn't attack them. But that was what seemed right for the Iranians - to get back at those who either made fools of them or left them hanging for the bears to eat.

We need to go study the Enlightment. I think Rosseau was pretty accurate when he said that history repeats itself in cycles of decay, so when you ask if terrorism can be stopped altogether, my answer to you is that this never is this possible. Maybe a ceasefire will exist for a while, but until we're all united by one ruler and we all have equal rights, then terrorism will still exist.


"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
I won't bite on the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" bait, it's been done to death.

I do have a question, though. Does the fact that our government changes hands so often contribute to the fact that we so frequently back out of conflicts that we've started? If our leadership were more continuous, without periodic needs to revamp policy and win an election, and without constant flipflopping between worldviews, would we be more reliable, diplomatically?

I'm not saying we should get rid of democracy or anything insane like that I'm just curious.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
No. Reagan changed sides during his own Presidency. I don't see how making his reign longer would have helped that situation.

However, on the other hand, maybe his reasoning was the same as that of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon with all of southeast Asia.

I think the problem isn't staying in power as much as it is power in general. Power and money (which in itself is power.)

Our country doesn't have the tendency to do what is "right" but what will garner more or retain power and wealth.

And that is our biggest PR problem.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Kayla, I strongly disagree with you. I think we have had at the least good intentions in every endeavor we have undertaken as a nation. If anything it was our isolationist stance prior to the two world wars that prevented us from doing the "right" thing. In Korea and in Vietnam we had the intention of combating agression toward innocent countries. During the Cold War we were combating what really was an "evil empire", although I would say that our support of anti-communist dictatorships was wrong we did intend on doing the "right" thing.

By the way the reason why Osama bin Laden is out to get us is because we "occupied" the "holy land." Despite the fact that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect it bin Laden couldn't stand infidels being in the land of the prophet. Other things like our support of Israel doesn't help either but it really was sparked after Gulf War.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
What I have trouble with is this. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. No one disputes this fact, however a lot of Americans seem to support his continued rule. The man has proven himself a threat to his own people, a region, and the world. I understand the idea of national sovreignty, however if a nation won't help itself, someone else has too.

By the way I think Sopwith should start making US foreign policy. He nailed it.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Is Al Qaeda also entitled to "help the United States out" by taking out Bush, if they believe he is as evil as we believe Saddam is? (Which they certainly do.)

[ September 06, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
The difference is that Bush isn't known for killing his own people. Hussein is universally acknowledged as evil.

[ September 06, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
The problem with the "Saddam is evil" argument is the fact that we really don't seem to have a clear policy or strategy defining when and where we will use force against corrupt foreign governments for the sake of their people. Saddam was attacked primarily because he seemed to pose a danger to America, and now that people are debunking many of the claims of danger, an increasing number of us are falling back to the "Saddam is evil" argument.

Now, I don't think it's necessarily a bad policy in general to try and improve conditions in the world by taking down oppressors and building democracies. But if that is our policy, we need to codify and define it as a new national "doctrine" so there can be no quibbling about it.

If it's not our policy, then we need to show a different justification for the war in Iraq. I'm not saying there ISN'T one — in fact, I still think there IS. But the "Saddam is evil" justification doesn't work so long as this is an isolated case.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Hussein is a terrible ruler, a villian and an evil man.

However, if the reason the US went in and destroyed him was because of these evin tendancies, then why didn't we invade Liberia when the mass murdering Taylor was in control? Why don't we invade North Korea right now? The woman bashing Taliban of Afghanistan were taken out. Now do we move onto Saudi Arabia?

There are some liberal countries that see Capital Punishment as an evil. Does that give them the right to invade the US? (Texas?)

There are other murderous leaders in control of countries around the world. Do we have the obligation and the right to kill them or to invade thier countries?

Actually I have no problem with our removal of Hussein. What I complain about is the Pea & Shell approach that our government and its backers use to defend it.

They say, "We invaded Iraq to stop terrorism."
When critics argue that there is no connection they respond, "Maybe, but Sadaam was Evil. He had to go."
When critics respond about other evil dictators, and other arguments against such a motive, they do not defend this Good Guy scenario. They respond with, "Sadaam had WMD and was working on NUCLEAR BOMBS!!"
When critics respond that the evidence of Nuclear Bombs is either fake or non-existant the do not argue that point. They respond with, "We are fighting terrorists."

Its a circle that always avoids answering the charges of wrong information with new explanations.
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
To back Ryan up a bit, though, the difference really is that we're right about their government, and they're wrong about ours. I know that's not the most PC or multiculturalist thing to say, but it's true. George Bush cannot do in America what Saddam has done in Iraq, period. Even if he wanted to, our time-honored system and culture prevents it. American-style democracy has its problems, but it works, and it leads to prosperity and security for its people.

I'm not saying America is immune to the problems that Iraq has recently had, but it would take some serious changes or calamities before such problems would be possible. Iraq has simply lived with violence, oppression, fear of the government, rule by force, poverty and starvation, etc, for decades as though it were completely normal. Our message to the world really ought to be that such things are NOT normal anymore. There is a way to rule a generally prosperous and happy nation without beating down most of your populous. And now that such nations exist, EVERYONE deserves to live in one.

I don't think Saddam's supporters or Al Qaeda can make the same argument, convincingly, to Americans. They cannot convince anyone that the world would be better off under a corrupt, violent Muslim theocracy because the countries where such a government has been tried are totally miserable. America, despite its problems, still has a few things to be proud of.

And seriously. Bush has some really vitriolic enemies, sure. But he's not a despot. He isn't Stalin or Hitler, okay? Can people disagree with him and dislike him without having to accuse him of being Pol Pot?
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 

quote:

---

Our country doesn't have the tendency to do what is "right" but what will garner more or retain power and wealth.

---

quote:

---

The difference is that Bush isn't known for killing his own people. Hussein is universally acknowledged as evil.

---

quote:

---

I don't think Saddam's supporters or Al Qaeda can make the same argument, convincingly, to Americans. They cannot convince anyone that the world would be better off under a corrupt, violent Muslim theocracy because the countries where such a government has been tried are totally miserable. America, despite its problems, still has a few things to be proud of.

---