You could ask Tim McVeigh that if he weren’t dead.
Funny, I could have sworn that I typed this earlier.
ElvisL1ves, do you mean to imply that Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden posed exactly the same kind of challenge to the United States and should have been dealt with exactly the same way? Or is it up to me to try to figure out the points that you’d like to articulate, if only you could? :rolleyes:
The same type of challenge? Essentially, yes. Oklahoma City was a terrorist attack by any reasonable definition.
Dealt with the same way? Obviously not.
A terrorist organization doesn’t have to export fertilizer, it only has to prepare people psychologically and then send them on business trips. Atta et al. physically only needed boxcutters, and they got those here.
They also needed expensive flight training, sponsorship to live in the US several months, and a controlling authority to synchronize their attacks. And that controlling authority needed money and protection from reprisal–which, I patiently repeat, only a state would realistically be in a position to provide.
First of all, I would like to say that I’m greatly amused by many of the responses here. A random journalist describes a policy in which the US is more selective in how it chooses to respond to other nations, dubs it “We don’t care”, and suddenly people are crying, “A ha! The US doesn’t care what anyone thinks! They think they can just ignore the rest of the world, and slap anyone who disagrees!”, as if this in any way logically follows. Permit me a snicker:
snicker
I love this policy (though if we make it official, it needs a name other than “We Don’t Care”, as this thread has shown ample evidence of the knee-jerkiness of some people). For nations like England, Japan, Austrailia, and the like, there will be no difference in diplomacy. They deal with us rationally (even if we don’t always agree), and we treat them in kind. But for the nations that like to whine because they believe that whining is the way to get what you want (unfortunately, thus far, they’ve been generally correct), it means that we’ll cease acknowledging their whininess. If they wish to be up front with us, and deal with us like grown-ups, then we’ll be waiting to listen.
This policy worked quite well in South Korea recently. South Korea benefits from our military protection from North Korea. In return, we get to listen to them constantly tell us how much they hate us, and how we’re imperialist goons. Then Rumsfeld takes the We Don’t Care policy for a test drive:
“Fine, if you really don’t want us there, we’ll pack up and leave. No biggie to us.”
Suddenly, South Korea becomes the epitome of grace and charm, and pro-US rallies spring up like dandelions in the spring. They receive the message that if they want our protection, they better be willing to work on our terms, and at least feign some gratitude. A small victory, sure, but a victory no less.
I would love to see this applied to the UN as well:
“You want to kick us off the Human Rights Commission, to make some more room for nations like Cuba and Libya? Okay, no skin off our teeth. I guess if we’re not on the commission, there’s no reason for us to fund any of those humanitarian missions…”
I think the biggest positive result of a policy such as this will be that the US will stop begging ungrateful nations for the privalege of throwing supplies and money at them, while they tell us how evil and selfish we are. Of course, this will inevitably inspire disdain from those who believe the US owes the world our help and money by virtue of our being wealthy and powerful. (Cue the singing Silly Symphony’s grasshopper: “The world owes me a livin’! The world owes me a livin’!”) All I can say to them:
We Don’t Care.
Jeff
Doghouse, you’ve managed to confuse me here.
Are you arguing that home-grown attackers (eg McVeigh or the Unabomber) are not terrorists because they are not funded by the state? How about if they were on welfare?
Or are you arguing that only a state could afford to put a few people through flight school? Typical flight school can cost a few tens of thousands of dollars, which is not an unreasonable amount (compares with the cost of a University education, for example).
So on the one hand, I don’t see McVeigh and Osama bin Laden as the same kind of challenge, although it is interesting that OBL’s first attack on the WTC used essentially the same technology as McVeigh, just to lesser effect.
On the other hand, what about one of the wacky “militia” groups that we occasionally read about (the nuts who declare themselves to be outside the US legal system, have their own currency and so forth – not groups of gun enthusiasts who use the name “militia” in their club title as a way of tweaking the 2nd Amendment)?
If one or more members of these groups had flown a plane into the WTC, or the Pentagon or DisneyWorld or somewhere like that to strike a blow against the US government – I’d argue that such a group would be similar to Osama bin Laden and Al Q. And I’d argue that one of these groups might have the resources to pursue such an attack. True they haven’t done it yet…
Desmostylus:
Well, granted, it certainly remains to be seen if Bush will do the things I want.
But the AIDS package is a matter of public record and is now official policy and was articulated to the world by Bush, so I’m inclined to believe that this WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. Silly, naïve me, I guess.
Besides, as the European SDMB posters (such as OliverH) have repeated ad nauseum, the EU is a big boy now. The euro has risen (and probably will continue to rise, I imagine) to the point where it is at least equal in stature to the dollar. It seems to me that the EU’s *raison d’etre * is to produce a common market (led by the political and economic power of France and Germany) with a strong currency that enables it to dilute the geopolitical power that America - backed by the power of the dollar – wields.
As Riboflavin stated, “it’s not like trade is going to stop, or even be much constrained since both the US and Europe benefit from commerce, and talking about open warfare is just absurd.” I agree. Better that Europe becomes our chief rival on economic terms than on military terms.
According to Europe, there’s no “Red Menace” to worry about anymore (thanks to Gorbachev and Reagan), just the “Red, White, and Blue” menace. Fair enough. I say to Europe, if you want to revert to the “balance of power” formula for world security, go ahead and use your OWN resources to do so.
It may be a shock to many Americans to wake up 15 years from now and realize that there’s a new big bully on the block. But I think we’ll adjust, and in fact, be relieved. Why? Because contrary to the stupid stereotype of Americans held by too many folks in the world, most of us don’t relish the idea of an American empire that is held responsible for all the world’s problems. It’s too much of a burden, and quite frankly, most of us are tired of being the world’s punching bag.
And maybe, in a strange way, this will boost American security and peace of mind as well. Maybe the dispossessed, unfree, dispirited, and pissed-off peoples of the world will now blame YOU for their plight instead of us, for a change.
Oh my God! That is talking about the Kurds!!!
Of course the Kurds love us. They aren’t our problem, now are they?
Cite? Why would I need a cite? I think the daily demonstrations agains the US in baghdad including the one where 13 people were killed is not expressing “love” for the US, now is it? I don’t think the guys are getting the message that “Anti-Americanism doesn’t pay, because we have the bombs”
From my mouth to Rumsfeld’s ear 
GoHeels:
Once again, I pose the question: Pissed off Muslims - isn’t this what you want?
Huh? First you say Isreal DOESN’T have a hard-line policy, THEN you cite the purported positive results of Isreal’s hard-line policy (that you just said they don’t have). And then you suggest that I am the one who has no point. And are you seriously suggesting that murdering Arafat would DECREASE terrorist attacks against Isreal? Puh-leeeze.
Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where Spock and several crew members are trapped on a planet in the shuttlecraft with a race of giant humanoids outside. Spock decides to electrify the hull of the shuttle to give them a jolt so that they will respect him, mistakenly thinking that they will respond logically to his show of superior force. The plan fails, and McCoy remarks: “Did it ever occur to you that they might respond with ANGER?”
I’m saying that international terrorism, as identified by GWB in his Axis of Evil speech, is a fundamentally different type of challenge than domestic ideologically-inspired crimes. One can be treated as a military and diplomatic issue, the other is a matter for law enforcement.
I’m saying that a foreign-based terrorist organization wouldn’t have attempted the WTC attacks without funding and protection from state sponsors. I don’t think you appreciate the fact that al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack was a sophisticated plan several months in the making, with training at the Afghanistan terror camps being an essential component of the plot.
The planes were loaded with fertilizer?
You’re illustrating my point. Why haven’t they been able to do so? And since they haven’t, by your own logic, you admit that they aren’t necessarily the same type of organization as Al Qaeda. Don’t you?
I’m typing really slowly now, in case you find any of this hard to follow. In the past, Israel’s existance was truly threatened by a ring of external enemies who were dedicated to pushing it into the sea. The country held a hard line, and its continued survival was remarkable accomplishment. A couple of fools with dynamite jackets can’t hold a candle to the threats that Israel faced in the past.
Why not?
I’m starting to understand where you get your foreign policy ideas.
The corollary being that if Israel did consider the Palestinian terrorists a threat on the same level as Nassar’s Egypt, Arafat and many others would have been taking the big dirt nap long before things ever got to this point.
Desmostylus, here’s the link about Bush pushing the AIDS package:
It’s scary, but I’m slowly turning into a Republican. :eek:
Ok Doghouse, I see your point now. I disagree somewhat with it, but at least I follow it. Thanks for typing slowly. 
I think that we can say that the home-grown nuts have not attempted anything like this yet – personally I think that’s all we can say, and that’s where we differ. Given the timescale in planning such an attack (and we agree that it takes a long time; some of this stuff was probably figured out a couple of years before the successful attack on 9/11), I wonder when the next attack will come. But I’ve probably dragged this thread away from where it should go.
Minor nit – the first attack on the WTC took place in 1993 when a group of “Arab-looking” gentlemen detonated a truck full of explosives in the parking lot under the WTC. There is a belief that this attack was also planned by bin Laden – from the article:
*"Many of the individuals involved in the 1993 WTC bombing were connected in some way to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. *
That’s because you miss a possibility. Specifically, that there are some things so important that the US is willing to suffer whatever consequences necessary to achieve some aim.
It’s not like this is unique. Lots of countries have something so dear to them that they “don’t care” what others may say about it. It could be maintinaing fishing rights to X miles instead of Y miles charging to use airspace or something far more important. Seriously – call Great Britain and tell them that monarchies are outdated and that if their Queen visits she can take the subway like everyone else. They don’t care – but you sure won’t get a visit from the Queen. Get on the horn to Canada and tell them their lumber system unfairly subsides Canadian companies and is anti-competitive. They don’t care. Slap whatever tariff you want on 'em, they’re still going to do it.
With the US, it’s currently international terrorism.
Thanks, GoHeels.
December, that cite seems to be from the opinion page of the paper, a fact that you failed to note in your post. Do you have a serious cite that makes the allegations you make, and, most importantly, do you have evidence to support them?
As for the rest of your post, it is pretty much worthless, much like the puerile fantasies and wishful thinking flying around in this thread. As usual, you appear to be immune to arguments and continue repeating variations of the same ridiculous assertions. Earlier, I provided objections to your biased and uninformed view of the UN as far as the Iraq weapons inspections problem goes – in fact I even delayed a meeting by ten minutes to whip those out. Perhaps you could address those objections before going on to repeat claims intended not to inform but to discredit the UN by any means possible?
It’s easy to argue using “what if”, but it’s hardly a conclusive strategy – that goes for quite a few of the other posts here. It’s possible to rationalize just about any “what if” by simply using the appropriate language and tweaking uncertain premises. The result is not a real argument.
Also, when Blowero made a point by alluding to specific Star Trek material, you saw fit to reply:
As it happens the point the Star Trek example illustrated was a perfectly valid one, and represents sound reasoning. Normally I would prefer other allusions myself, but in this case I see nothing wrong with the illustration of the problem, given that its key element (the danger of angry unexpected response) has been discussed previously without apparent breakthrough. And I’ll note that even works of fiction such as the Star Trek franchise have been known to exhibit a rather better grasp of foreign policy fundamentals than one sees in some discussions, including this one.
Does it really matter? There are always going to be anti-Americans and there are always going to be terrorists. America is alone in this and the sooner we realize this the better. “We don’t care” just shows our strenghened resolve not to give in to terrorists.