Not many allies are going to be willing to do another nations dirty work, especially when they are doing the work of the worlds only remaining super power. This isolationist strategy would work even worse than attacking every nation that we think has a terrorist in it.
As has been stated, going on the offensive is the right strategy. We are simply not executing it properly.
He who defends everything defends nothing. THe infrastructure that supports our society is too vulnerable at too many places to defend everything everywhere without compromising who we are and spending a whole lot of money. If we truly faced a dedicated terrorist group attempting to wreak economic havoc rather than one that went for the big, sexy target as inspiration to their co-religionists things could get very ugly very fast. We are too big and spread out to take an Israel-style approach to internal security.
I read Imperial Hubris and Fortress America over the past week so those two books certainly influenced my views of our vulnerabilities and potential responses to Al Qaeda.
Hhmmm ok I’m convinced… staying on the “offensive” is viable… its just hasn’t been done at all or properly against terrorism. Still its not only a military offensive we tend to talk about… in fact military option should be the least part of it. (after Afghanistan of course)
The US is much easier to defend than people warrant... but naturally only defensive doesn't help... nor invading Iraq.
Still its hard to debunk the idea that Iraq is the offensive that was wrong... :(I think it’s seriously fucked up to ask “How can I attack X position?” rather than try and get more details so you can decide for yourself if it’s something to be “debunked.” Like others, you’re fishing for reasons to attack the policies of the general opposition before you even know whether its worthy of attack just so you can further support your “side.” This is just a pathetic thread.
Not so KidCharlemagne… I understand the need to stop terrorists and to pro-actively go after them. I just don’t like the way “keep on the offensive” is being used as a mantra for aggressive military presence elsewhere.
Now I am just one human... and by asking others how to debunk... I can refine my arguments better. I corrected what I said before... because I do not want to infer that a "defensive" posture alone is good. Before I didn't think of "keeping on the offensive" to mean non-military options either, since I only see it used referring to military.
So I wasn't fishing.... thanksIf you are looking to debunk “keeping on the offensive” with regards to Iraq and the war on terror, you would be better served to prove that there were little or any terrorists in Iraq, or that there were no WMD to sell to terrorists.
I personally am not going to get into that because nothing has turned more rational dopers into rabid screaming monkeys that the Iraq war. If you use the search function on the board, you should have no problem finding enough threads to get the info you want.
One last thought, people that believe that Iraq was a strong part in the war on terror tend to have their minds made up. If you really want to bang your head against that wall, I wish you luck and patience.
I don’t understand why you say this. It’s actually pretty easy to make the case that Iraq was the wrong war. I has been done right here so very many times.
Definitely agree. Its MUCH more difficult to defend and justify the war in Iraq than it is to make the case it was the wrong war. And its been done MANY times here…as Mr. blowero has said.
-XT
No, but I did see Lisa Simpson try to explain that fallacy to Homer. By the way, I have a rock that will keep terrorists away. Care to buy it?
If I may, it may be difficult to debunk the idea (in the popular mindset, not necessarily here) that the Iraq war was justified because it is difficult to differentiate this idea (Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time) with the idea that Saddam Hussein should be put back in power. Please don’t over react. I am not accusing anyone of wanting that dictator back in power. I am simply trying to suggest that in popular sentiment his removal is justified simply because he is so demonized. What I’m saying is that you are going to have to prove pretty clearly a much higher cost than we have seen recently in order to debunk the concept you are trying to debunk.
A related idea is that Kerry supposedly is weak… which will encourage terrorism. Forget the silly claim that he is weak: since when were the terrorists impressed by our toughness? Why would they stop attacking just because Bush goes all angry face? Half of them are explicitly SUICIDAL for goodness sakes! And they over and over said they expected us to retaliate for their terrorism with massive military force. In fact, they counted on it.
hehe… Apos every time I hear the “we are scaring them” comments I always think… How do you scare suicidal fanatics !?! Oh toughy Bush… :smack:
Well, its not the suicidal fanatics you have to scare. Its the leaders, politicians, and demogogues who think that encouraging the suicidal fanatics is a good way to gain political goals that need to be convinced otherwise. Both with the carrot and the stick.
It would help you to debunk the offensive theories if you gave them more credence.
Carrot for Saudi Arabia, and stick for Iraq, right? 
No, the other way around.
Sorry, I don’t get your joke. 