In order to let bygones be bygones, the conflict has to stop first. Putting the cart before the horse.
Should we hate Germany and Japan forever? How about England?
Right now, we’re in the middle of the war. Someday the US and the Arab world will be great friends, but for now, there is tension and in some cases outright conflict between us. Until that is worked out one way or another, either by talking, force, or simply by time healing wounds, the conflict will continue. That’s just reality.
For the Arabs the very real and imperialistic interference from the USA upon their islamic countries has become even more so with Bush... so your point would justify Islamic terrorism as well.Adaher:
I agree, but then again, what about Pakistan?
…and just yesterday, Bush had Hosni Mubarak out to Crawford, a man who has been an “interim ruler” and held the biggest country in the Arab world in a “state of emergency” for 23 years. The purists might say, “Why should we deal with a slimeball like that?” but the alternative is to totally alienate a major Arab country. Sometimes there are no good choices. And some of the dictators, like Musharraf, are actually somewhat progressive and enlightened compared to some of the other forces in their countries. It sucks but it was the same thing as happened with Saddam–initially, as he indeed tried mightily to modernize his country, we “supported” him with our noses held.
**For the Arabs the very real and imperialistic interference from the USA upon their islamic countries has become even more so with Bush… so your point would justify Islamic terrorism as well.
**
I don’t see how. Historically, terrorism has rarely resulted in victory for the terrorists. And even when it has, the terrorism was conducted in a smarter way than most Arab movements do it. YOu have to attack specific targets at specific times, gaining sympathy for your cause. The Arab terrorist groups attack indiscriminately, looking for the highest body counts possible, and do not vary their intensity regardless of the political situation. To cite the most frequent example, look at Israel. If the Palestinians were smart, they would hit hard during Likud governments and lighten up on Labor governments, who have been more inclined to negotiate and make concessions. Instead, they maintain 100% effort at all times. So the natural result is that there are less attacks when Likud is in charge, as Likud is more proactive in fighting terrorism. So the Palestinians harm their cause by making Ariel Sharon look good to Israeli voters, when they should have been doing their best to make Rabin, Peres, and Barak look good. Instead they made them look like idiots for making concessions that never were reciprocated by a lessening of violence. In fact, violence always increased after major concessions by the Israelis.
Now someone will argue that the Israelis have never gone far enough, and this is no doubt true. But it is also beside the point. Any concession should be praised and some effort going into positiviely reinforcing it to get more concessions. At the very least, concessions shouldn’t be met with more terrorism. That sends exactly the opposite message you want to send.
I agree, but then again, what about Pakistan?
Pakistan is a crucial ally in the War on Terror. As much as we can’t trust them, we have no choice but to work with them for now. Without Pakistan, we have no chance of ever making any more high profile Al Qaeda kills. So for now, we have to deal with Pakistan the same way we dealt with the Soviets in WWII. Not exactly friends, but we need each other for now. Besides, it appears that some good has come from the US having influence with Pakistan outside of the war against Al Qaeda. Pakistan and India are improving their relations, and Musharraf is slowly moving towards elections and liberalization.
…and just yesterday, Bush had Hosni Mubarak out to Crawford, a man who has been an “interim ruler” and held the biggest country in the Arab world in a “state of emergency” for 23 years. The purists might say, “Why should we deal with a slimeball like that?” but the alternative is to totally alienate a major Arab country. Sometimes there are no good choices. And some of the dictators, like Musharraf, are actually somewhat progressive and enlightened compared to some of the other forces in their countries. It sucks but it was the same thing as happened with Saddam–initially, as he indeed tried mightily to modernize his country, we “supported” him with our noses held.
That’s a good point that bears repetition. People love to bash us for our foreign policy decisions, but they only make half an argument. They neglect to discuss what would happen if we hadn’t supported who we supported at any particular time. I also find such arguments to be rather reflexively anti-American just to be anti-American. Often the same people that criticize us for being friendly with a certain dictator are mad at us for NOT being friendly with others, like Castro. So we can’t win with some people and those types aren’t really worth responding to.
According to the latest Gallup poll, only 13% of the country think terrorism is the country’s most important problem. Iraq and the state of the economy come out far ahead of terrorism. Bush is clearly not getting one of his cornerstone messages across to the public <lol>.
Adaher,
You got a point there… I agree the terrorists aren’t playing smarts as regards “outside public”… but then I think they are doing it more for their own people’s and Arab support.
Arafat was smarter in the past in making the Israeli look like villains with the intifadah. Now with Bush its hard to get any political concessions from Israel no matter what... since Bush isn't bound to sympathize with palestinians no matter what Sharon does.
Once again if we invert it... Bush has not been "gaining sympathy for his cause". Its like all sides are focusing on body count and military endeavours instead of gaining political and diplomatic ground.Let me get back to the OP. I think several posters have already pointed out the obvious, that when you word questions in such a loaded and extreme way, that no reasonable person is going to agree.
But if we look at the question in more moderate terms I’d say that military force can do a great job in eliminating terrrorists.
In summary, the more democracy, the less terrorism. And yes, you can defeat a tyranny through force and give its victims the right to vote.
**Once again if we invert it… Bush has not been “gaining sympathy for his cause”. Its like all sides are focusing on body count and military endeavours instead of gaining political and diplomatic ground.
**
The stronger side doesn’t need sympathy.
Forget about Tom Clancy. Stephen King had the hero of The Running Man ramming a plane into the broadcast skyscraper.
Guilty of a little twisted logic here, aren’t you, Rashak? Your claim that no one is defending the military solution is based on your own opinion that Bush is seeking a mostly military solution, and clearly it appears no one else believes this, or has ever even said it. That’s why no has been defending the military “solution.” This so-called “solution,” in and of itself, doesn’t exist.
What you’re really saying is that since you are correct in your assumption that Bush is seeking only, or primarily, a military solution (an assumption that is quite erroneous), that this view should be obvious to everyone, and that therefore you wonder why Bush is considered good in defense given that he seems only to believe in the military as a weapon against terrorism.
Bush has spoken many times of how the war on terror will take years, that much of the battle will go on behind the scenes, that most people will be unaware of the efforts being put into fighting it, and that it will be fought in a vast and multi-faceted way. This would entail but not be limited to: diplomacy; vigilance; national and international police and intelligence activity; drying up sources of financing; etc.
If the basic premise is in error, every deduction or assumption with that premise as its foundation will be in error as well.
Well somewhere along the thread I mentioned that the idea wasn’t that Bush is going ALL military… but I got people to “agree” that a military solution isn’t by itself a solution. Most agree that military action should be a sideshow ?
I agree that Bush is trying non-military approaches… but his main stand is “tough” on terrorists and the Iraq military adventure. He hurt the diplomatic and political efforts very heavily by his rough handling of the UN and the Iraq. So if the military aspect is minor… then other aspects are major ? If they are then Bush isn’t doing a good job.
Does sympathy hurt their cause ? If your playing for the long term... and against terrorism its always long term... then sympathy doesn't hurt. Or you'd rather others hate/dislike your country or at best think your obnoxious (right but obnoxious nonetheless) ?Again with the false premise. 
It’s one thing to ask if Bush thinks the military solution is the only solution, or even the major solution, but to say this isn’t the case in no way indicates the military aspect is minor. I would be inclined to regard military action to be just one of many very important weapons in the battle to protect ourselves from terrorism.
I believe it’s also a false premise to claim that if the military aspect is minor (assuming, of course, that were the case) then Bush isn’t doing a good job. You have no idea what he and his administration are doing behind the scenes in the way I described in my previous post, nor will their effectiveness (or lack thereor) be known for many years.
Damn!..and I even previewed. Make that “or lack thereof.”