Israel has nukes. It is in no danger of being annhiliated. We also disagree on who sabotaged the “Road Map”. Civilian Settlers?
You should be able to Force Israel to do the monkey dance with the money you could withhold from them. The amount of money strengthens my argument. Israel is a friend that seems content to cause PR nightmares to their friends. Israel is a friend that seems content to have the US catch bullets for just a few settlements more.
Ok so you DO seriously belive that the war on Iraq has had or will have a negative impact on international terrorism? It hasn’t and it won’t, if anything it will help fuel it.
All other things aside, blunt military force does not combat terrorism. The effective way to combat terrorism is by police actions and international cooperation. Preventing terrorism is “easy”, you just have to remove two things: The motivation and the recruitment base. Solve the problems (US troops in holy cities, the Isreal/Palestine conflict) and elevate peoples living standard and education so they have soemthing to live for. Would you sign up to be a suicide bomber? No? Why not? Are you born different then those who do? No, it’s because you have something to live for. You have a home, a family, computer, job etc etc.
When military action is called for, which it obviously is against AQ, the only strategy that has been used effectively so far in these circumstances has been what was initiated by SAS and is called “hearts and minds”. Small specialisied units gathering intelligence and making aggressive operations while subverting the population to their casue through medical, economical and social help. This worked in Malaysia, Borneo, Aden… that is a model that works. Going in with the blunt force of regular infantry, wreaking havoc and causing civilian casualties, that will only further the cause of the terrorists.
I don’t think anyone here is against fighting terrorism, and that is just another reason to be critical of the US actions post 9/11. The big winner so far is OBL, the big loser is the rest of the world.
Doesn’t anyone else see the idiocy of trying to cow terrorists into submission with brute force? These are people that are willing to blow themselves up because they see no other choice, so the USA’s threats of violence are scary to them or will give them pause in what way again?
They need to be given a choice, a way out of their miserable situations. That won’t stop terrorism, but it would sure help a lot more than just military force. Someone that purposely blows himself up for a cause is hardly going to change his ways because of his enemies are killing and threatening to kill said terrorist, his friends, neighbors, and/or family. Some hope of a full and productive life seems like it would be much more effective than making his situation even bleaker.
…which was exactly why OBL took on mainland US targets.
AQ predicted the general trend of US response and that it would drive the new world order straight down the roadmap they wished it to. Bush’s US foreign policy advisers promptly fell straight into the trap - a mistake of historical proportions which will result in the eventual defeat of the US.
I predict a similar endgame as the Viet Nam experience, that knocked the stuffing out of the US. The will to win will evaporate as opposition increases rather than decreases and the costs become unacceptable to the American people.
I am not confident that future US administrations will be willing to learn anything permanent from history, any more than this one has. Israel remains the key to everything - solve that and you are well on the way to being home and dry. Unfortunately I see no way the US political system can will ever permit disengagement, as is required, from their strategic alliance with Israel.
BTW I am NOT suggesting a US military defeat, or even that Iraq is the end game where “victory” or defeat will be decided. I fear the end game is 5 years plus down the road as the whole concept of a War on Terror is shown to be the Big Lie it always was.
Watching a BBC programme about Palestine last night, an interesting stat was mentioned. Apparently over 70pc of Palestinians support suicide bombers now as against 26pc in 1997. The change has been influenced by heavy-handed Israeli repression. i.e. attacking terrorim with over-whelming firepower promotes terrorism, as theR mentions above.
This is an idea that has been oft repeated and never, as far as I can remember, refuted.
Assuming the US leadership is intelligent, they MUST have known that going into Afghanistan & Iraq with all guns blazing was going to give birth to many more terrorists.
That begs the question, if your primary action in ridding the world of terrorism creates more of the same, and that is understood, then America’s “war on terrorism” must in fact have other motives other than eradicating terrorism.
I can only assume that that other motive is either the garnering of support for GWB at home - to win the election - or the general promotion/sustenance of the military/industrial machine.
Either way, a tiny minority have decided that to protect their power or wealth (often the same) they are prepared to destroy an undetermined amount of lives - most foreign but also some American - to further their personal aims.
Is this not murder?
The Iraq campaign has squandered, wantonly, the unprecedented outpourning of sympathy that the US had following the horrors of 9-11.
We were prepared to forgive the US media the impression they that terrorism was now a uniquely American problem - the presentations gave the impression that it had never happened to anyone anywhere before - because it was, after all, the worst and most horrific act of terror ever perpetrated. And the most visible. If the US had taken Afghanistan and then pledged something like $87 billion and more to really, really make that country work, I think the sympathy would have been sustained. The worry started when Bush first formed the words “War on Terror”, rather than simply pledging to destroy Al Qaeda via intel, police, and covert military work.
The worry was compounded by his 2002 State of the Union address.
If Bush had pursued Saddam - a noble goal that nobody would deny - through an international coalition with patience and honesty, it may have sustained sympathy. But the manner in which his admin went after Iraq destroyed that credibility utterly. The world and was being lied to, we knew it, they knew we knew, and they didn’t care. And now it’s proven that we were.
But worse than that, as predicted to Bush’s buddy Blair (and no doubt similar intel would have been given to Bush), the threat from terror has actually increased due to Iraq. Honestly, can someone please tell confused-ol’-me what sort of government declares a “War on Terror” and then performs actions that IT KNOWS will actually increase the threat of the thing it’s nominally trying to fight?!?! Why the hell would anyone do this (unless perhaps they were pursuing an entirely different agenda to the one stated)?
Where is the study that proves definitively that full-scale violence against terrorists (and the non-combatants who surround them) actually works? How much historical precedent is there to indicate that this particular approach works, as opposed to having entirely the opposite effect (Bloody Sunday, the Occupied Territories, the Hue Massacre, etc. etc.)?
See, the problem is not just that they lied, but that they did it so blatantly and arrogantly.
It is sad that in the 21st century that the most prosperous and liberal country in the world gives so much attention to one issue and then tries to “solve” it through the use of force primarily. One can barely blame palestinians and israelis for trying to “solve” their issues with bombs and missiles. This bodes badly for the future of humanity…
Does this denote weakness ? Hardly... but it does denote a lack of willingness to work things through more peaceful and definite ways. Pride called out louder. If the US were militarily inferior than now would they have pursued more balanced ways ? Possibly.
Military solutions by themselves do nothing....
Just to reinforce what Stone said... many smart foreigners including myself perceive Bush as a mistake... an honest mistake by american voters. We have afterall our share of bad presidents we also happily voted in. That 9/11 was wrong not only for hitting innocents... but because the "causes" come from decades of mismanagement by several different US presidents and during the Cold War. Now... and this is important... if Bush get re-elected and the Democracts had a reasonable or good candidate, (if they put up some joke for candidate its another story) then all americans are being acessories to Bush criminal ways. By approving of his policies the US voter becomes a "legitimate" target for terrorism. (aka: "You asked for it" )Yep I’ve gotta agree with that. If this guy is voted back in after it has been proven that he at least played fast and loose with the truth about one of the most important thing any leader can become involved with, WAR. Then I will have lost an awful lot of respect for a lot of Americans and feel sorry for the rest. This goes beyond politics IMO. It’s about making sure that your leaders know there is a limit to the amount of bs they can fling.
OH and IMO Blair should go as well. If I were a Brit I’d be an active Blair supporter BTW but he still should go.
Waitasecond here… considering that the United States is noticably more conservative (overall) than the rest of the world (overall), where this this “most liberal country” bit come from?
(I wish this country was more liberal, then guys like Bush would be laughed off the ballot instead of planted in the White House)
Please appraise of us of any treaty wherein the US gives up the right to levy war.
Shrug She’s entitled to her interpretation of Chirac’s words. I took them on their face. I find the idea that if we’d just waited a week, a month, two months, France would have come on board absurd. YMMV
First, I do consider it. Read my first post again and note all the qualifiers.
“Almost everyone else in the world” is in not lockstep with Western Europe. I’d wager there’s a couple billion that don’t give a toss. More to the point, the opposition was motivated not because people really, really wanted what was best for the US, but becuase they had their own interests in mind; whether governments fearful of losing profitable deals with Saddam, or peace activists who are opposed to all war on principle, or who want to see the end of the Nation-state or what have you. Those are perfectly valid sentiments and ideas that may well have merit, and everyone’s free to pursue their own goals. But it’s absurd to pretend that people marching in Europe – or for matter their governments – had the US’s interests in mind and not their own.
And what exactly is that “consideration” supposed to look like?
Consulting with the UN? Getting UNSC resolutions suporting your position? One-on-ones with other major nations? Consulting Congress? Taking advice from different viewpoints within the administration? All done, and the US did change their timetables and plans to accomodate the UK. But at the end of the day, you have to shit or get off the pot. You can’t sit there going back and forth forever, and you have to make a choice and then be ready to stick up for whatever you decide. If you come out with “here’s our plan, we kinda think it’ll work, but maybe not” you have guaranteed failure.
Is it the W plan what I would have done? Maybe not, but I don’t get the intel every morning.
Will it work? Don’t know and neither does anyone else.
Was it his decision to make, with the approval of Congress? Abso-friggin-lutely.
How, exactly, would these be “forced” on them? We gonna offer to buy off every Wahhabist Imam? Pay the whole House of Saud to go into exile? What happens when they refuse?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by notquitekarpov *
**AQ predicted the general trend of US response … **Cite?
If I punch you in the nose and predict you will punch back, does that mean I win?
Which you proceed to dismiss as irrelevant, as you continue to do below.
Strawman sensor flashing red! Who limited it to “Western Europe”? You, not me.
Perhaps, but we’re talking about the people who do.
You really refuse to get it, don’t you? You didn’t listen to a damn word you were told, then or now, just like Bush, or you’d stop those damn lies about the motivations of others.
No, NOT all done, NONE of it. Any such “consultations” were nothing more than arm-twisting, NOT any attempt to find out what anyone else thought, or why, or what facts they might have had or considered that he didn’t. And, despite all the bribes, all the threats, only one other leader came on board - and look at the support he has. But that, to you, is vindication of your refusal to even try to understand the problem. That is fundamental dishonesty of the worst sort. Bush engaged in it, and you don’t even recognize it.
Let’s try it in simpler terms: Virtually everything that led Bush to do what he did has been proven wrong. Virtually everything that led so much of the world’s population to oppose it has been proven right. Almost all the worst fears, and almost none of even the most tepid hopes, of what might happen have happened and are happening. What does that mean? Bush was and is wrong. YOU were and are wrong. Lots and lots of people told him so, and told you so too. He didn’t listen, and you didn’t either. Lots of people have been killed because of it. He still isn’t listening, and neither are you. That makes it his fault, and yours. Get it, pal? Understand where the fault lies, and why? What are you going to do about it in the future?
Not at all. I was somewhat ambivalent about W’s strategy at the beginning, and aware that there were intelligent arguments against it, that may yet be validated. What I was addressing in this thread was the misconception that there was a “rush to war,” or that an American adminstration must somehow do a poll
**
I was referring back to comments in my first post.
**
Yes, I am willfully evil.
No, admitted, I don’t know anyone’s motivations, and neither do you. But are you seriously suggesting that people in other countries who were opposed to US involvement in Iraq were primarily motivated by a desire to advance US interests? I find that highly dubious.
NOT that I think they are all hateful anti-Americans; just that they have their own causes. They may believe that it is morally wrong for any state to wage war without UN approval, and they may well think that such a world would be safer for everyone including the US. It is a reasonable position, held by many intelligent and honest people. However, it is not one, I suggest, that they arrived at by seeking what is best for the United States. They arrived at it because they desire to see world peace, a universal brotherhood of man, a more powerful UN or whatever. That is what I mean by “their own interests.” They have a cause, and whether or not it is wise or noble, the task before a US president is to ask if such a cause is congruent with what is good for America’s safety and security. If it is, great. If not, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
**
Ah, the bagpipes are tuning up. There’s the True Scotsman on the horizon…
The implication I get from the preceding is that if we just listened, of COURSE everyone would agree with you. I would like to hear you spell out, specifically, a set of events that would have cause you to say “Well, Dubya wasn’t convinced, but at least he did listen to other ideas.”
Sorry, but I was on these boards, I was reading the op/eds, I was talking about it with colleagues. I’ve heard the arguments. I considered them. And in the end I came down on Dubya’s side. And I’m not even a Republican. Sorry if that doesn’t compute. I could yet conclude I was wrong; but this “you didn’t really listen” whine is pathetic and insulting.
Saddam still in power, mailing checks to suicide bombers? No progress at all towards creating a liberal democracy inthe middle east? No evidence of even a dormant WMD program? Mass graves still being filled?
Troops attacked with chemical weapons? Hundreds of thousands of deaths? Months of intense, house-to-house combat? Refugee crisis? Starvation?
What was that part about impugning people’s motives?
Continue to hope that a sane and intelligent opposition to this adminstration emerges to replace the foaming-at-the-mouth, make-themselves-irrelvant types?
You do know your own, and I know mine. Those of us who listen well enough to restate what they’re being told by others know what theirs are, too.
Excluded middle. Perhaps they’re not necessarily motivated by what you think national interests are? You do go on to say, at length what you think their motivations really are, though, right after admitting that you don’t know. Interesting.
Hardly. The next step, one you’re not at yet, is to be able to honestly restate what you’re being told. You haven’t done that, and neither did Bush.
Something beyond that incoherent “focus group” putdown, which was all he ever said about it. Blair did start to address it, before saying he was dismissing it all and going ahead anyway. Remember? No, you don’t.
No, friend, you didn’t, as evidenced by the fact that you can’t accurately restate them. You’re quoting strawmen, not actual people.
Your comments about what the situation is do agree with what I said about a near-worst-case scenario: The world is less safe, even Blair admits it, and people are dying because of it. If Bush had listened to and honestly tried to understand anyone anyone outside his own echo chamber, that might not be the situation.
No, Charlie, I suggested possible motives and said that I thought their motives were definitely NOT.
**
I frigging TEACH Rogerian argument in a class; it is a good thing. But to say that it is the only measure of understanding, that if someone does not specifically repeat your position back to you, then he must necessarily not be listening is asinine. Of course, since you’re not even practicing it yourself, why am I even bothering to say this?
Would you like me to provide cites for all of the since-discarded dire predictions? Would you like photos of mass graves? Or would you like to linger in “my side is 100% right, the meanie men are 100% wrong?”