Er, you are aware that bin Laden’s organization was behind the Cole attack and the embassy bombings?
I think this is rather nonsensical. Bin Laden may have duped “martyrs” into flying planes into buildings for him, and Saddam may have rewarded the families of those who went on to their reward of 71 virgins, but that doesn’t mean that the guys calling the shots believe the propaganda they espoused in pursuit of their own, rational, goals.
Er, cite? If you’re thinking of 9/11–once again, that was a response to weakness, not strength. If a show of strength is so murderously enraging to the Arab “street”, why haven’t we suffered for our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Can you name an international terrorist organization that doesn’t exist by virtue of state sponsorship? Local guerilla movements may be able to create terror in their own backyards, but I can’t see how an organization could export terror across the ocean without the funding, territory, and supplies provided by states like Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was Cicero who said oderint dum metuant (“Let them hate so long as they fear”.)
You have to take the times into account, though. Their era was very much a time of conquest and upheavel. He was responisble for revealing a attempted coup d’etat (catailina), he lived through Rome becoming an Empire instead of a republic, was exiled himself because he preferred the Republic over the Empire…
Personally, i think Bush’s “we don’t care” policy is going to have more economic repercussions than anything else…And even Rome collapsed because they could no longer sustain themselves economically.
[hijack]As it was stated before, Pearl Harbor is a rather ill comparison. After all, Japan was already at war with China, when the USA placed the oil embargo on Japan. Unlike the USA, Japan doesn’t have the natural oil resources to sustain a war effort without it. Even during peacetimes it would be a reason for any nation to go to war, when faced with an oil embargo. Having to do so during a war, when you need oil, makes things even worse.
Before that FDR geared up the production for war and let’s not forget how the fleet was conveniently relocated to Pearl Harbor - of course this wasn’t done in preparation for a war, no, no, no.
All in all, it’s no wonder Japan attacked the USA. The only point you have going in your favour is the surprise attack. Good thing that “fortune” yet again struck at the right moment and that the aircraft carriers, which were supposed to be in Pearl, were on a manouver when the attack took place.
I am of the opinion that the government should never negotiate with terrorists.
However, on the other hand, breaking up communication with your allies is as foolish as it can get.
Did we agree to get out of Saudi Arabia? I hope so. Sometimes you may do something for your own benefit that happens to coincide with what the terrorists want. IIRC, the main reason we had so many troops in S.A. was because of the threat from Iraq.
But it seems to me the S.A.s hamstrung our ability to use those troops so much, we might as well station them somewhere else. Maybe even back in the US…
Wow! Axelrod has a BOOK? And you can READ it! That’s great!
I know it is, Axelrod seems to know it is: the question is: why don’t you and december seem to know it is? Why do you think you can just spout off about the game and then ignore the entire thrust of the discussion, ending with: yup, we should punish those who disagree with us. (which is hardly the same thing as not cooperating on a mutual benefit) If this is the sort of insight you get from reading Axelrod, what was all the reading for?
The findings on tft are indeed important, because they elp illustrate good general principles (like, don’t have a complicated strategy: be consistent and clear about what you are going to do in various situations). And yeah “so what” is a clear and consistent strategy. But it isn’t even “tit-for-tat.” It’s “do as we say, or get smacked up bitch.”
Not so. The logic of OBL was essentially: if we hurt the american public enough, the public wont tolerate U.S. military prescence in the holy lands.
The ironic thing is that so many patriotic commentators here started declaring (for no particular reason I can discern other than that it sounded goood) that OBL hates democracy. No no: the REASON he targeted civilians was because he reasoned that ordinary civilians are, in a democracy, just as culpable for the crimes of their government, and he should take the pain straight to them. He also cited Hiroshima: America itself has defended the decision to use mass violence against civilians to help win a war more quickly (maybe even saving lives).
You may not like or agree with that logic of course, but that does seem to have been his logic. And by that logic, if we really HAD caved in and left the Middle East, how long before someone else realized that they could get us to do what they wanted with just one really big terror event?
Optihut, I may as well cut off the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy theory at the pass here.
The fact that the U.S. was preparing for a possible war with Japan at the time was public knowledge. There wasn’t anything secret about it; the USA and Japan were on the verge of war, everyone knew it, and it was the subject of every third headline in every West Coast newspaper. The breakdowns in negotiations between the two countries were a big news story, and the U.S. was quite open about mobilizing the fleet for war. After all, the carriers were not just “On Maneuvers” that day - they were delivering combat aircraft to Wake Island to bolster that island’s defences.
The fact that Japan successfully pulled off the attack was simply a product of good luck and a structural failure in the American intelligence network. At the time the U.S. had no central, functioning intelligence service, so the intelligence cycle broke down. And bear in mind that Pearl Harbor wasn’t even the primary Japanese target.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
Sorry if it sounds jingoistic, but it looks like the best way to prevent another 9/11 is to demonstrate that we have the capability and resolve to find and kill individuals and regimes that might support any such future attack.
[\QUOTE]
Yeah, Isreal has taken such a hard-line stance for decades, and they’ve completely stopped all terrorist attacks, right?:rolleyes:
To make the analogy more precise, let’s assume that you and your neighbor came to a satisfactory agreement. But, suddenly Hans Blix charged in and announced that you could not be trusted. Suppose he demanded that the agreement not go into effect without his personal inspection and approval. What would you say to Blix?
Or, suppose Jaques Chirac jumped in and announced that your agreement needed his approval. And, he would only approve if he were cut in on the deal and made money from it. What would you say to Chirac?
Apos, after your first rude post rebuking me about Axelrod, I reponded politely. Now you followed up with a rude, sarcastic response to John Mace. This is an example where being a nice guy didn’t work. I will now try TFT.
Apos, it’s remarkably arrogant and foolish for you to rebuke John Mace and me about Axelrod’s ideas when you apparently haven’t read his book and we have.
Furthermore, I went to college with Bob Axelrod. I recall his having an interest in non-zero sum games even then. Because I had known him, I have paid greater than average attention to his work.
This forum is called Great Debates, not Great Hubris. :wally
And what was that “satisfactory agreement” that Blix fouled up? Oh, you mean the “agreement” that we were going to unilaterally go in and kick Iraq’s ass? Is that the same kind of agreement as when people “agree” to take up 2 parking spaces for their SUV?
And then, after the Strawman showed up, the Tin Woodsman and the Cowardly Lion got into the picture… Actually, didn’t Chirac need the money because he likes to eat babies, and babies are really expensive? And I guess all the other UN countries that didn’t agree were also evil and selfish, right?
Thanks for making things more “precise”.:rolleyes:
The more I participate in this thread, the more I like this strategy. It definitely needs a PR agent, so let’s not call it the “We don’t care” policy. Too negative. How about “We care if You care”? It amounts to the same thing, but looks at it from the positive angle, rather than from the the negative angle.
Care to show me where I have come even close to saying that countries should be punished for not cooperating? Let’s not twist each others’ words here, pal.
Who sponsored the UNSC resolution that returned UNMOVIC to Iraq?
How did Hans Blix have any authority in the agreements (resolutions) of the UNSC?
Under what authority did France have a say in UNSC matters?
And who offered billions of aid in exchange for UNSC support?
I think we all know the answers to these questions, so perhaps you could just respond to this one: What leads you to believe your suggestions make the analogy more precise?
First, you didn’t seem to notice my follow-up comment regarding Israel. If the Israelis were truly “hard-line”, and if they were able to back up that policy without worrying about the US reaction, Yassir Arafat would be a dead man. Again, negotiating with people dedicated to your destruction does not reflect capability or resolve, but their opposites.
Second, the current problems with Palestinian terrorists don’t pose the same threat to the state’s survival as it faced in 1967 and 1973. Israel didn’t waffle around in its response to attacks then.
Third, if it weren’t for Israel’s “hard-line” policies, Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons back in the 1980s.
Because there is no longer any reason for UN inspections, for sanctions, or for the oil-for-food program. These were all aimed at the Saddam Hussein regime, which is obviously gone. Nevertheless, Blix and Chirac (and Putin) want to hang onto them. In the case of Chirac and Putin their reasons are transparently financial. They want the new Iraqi government to guarantee debts committed by Saddam. They want oil concessions. They are threatening to ball up the new Iraqi government if they don’t get some kind of payoff.
I don’t know what Blix’s motivation is. One possibility might be that Blix (and Kofi Annan) want to keep oil-for-food going as long as possible, because the UN makes a fortune from the program.
. . . all of which are located about 8,000 miles from their target of ire. How is “someone who doesn’t care” going to get his van full of fertilizer across an ocean without some kind of sponsorship–including protection from law enforcement? I suspect that the unfriendly states that are best positioned to provide such support have taken careful note of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you’re thinking of 9/11–once again, that was a response to weakness, not strength. If a show of strength is so murderously enraging to the Arab “street”, why haven’t we suffered for our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?