Yeah, we sure did a damn good job of stopping airline hijackings. I’d heard these really wild rumors…
insert obligatory Homer quote here
I’m sure we’ll have just as much luck ending terrorism.
London_Calling:
LC, your point holds to a certain extent. If people are being legitimately wronged, simply smacking them around is pointless. However, if a people’s perceived greivances aren’t entirely valid, then diplomacy, by itself, is also worthless.
In WWII, the Germans had greivances against the Jews. Should we have simply negotiated with them, and tried to make them happy without force? Or were we correct to go in there, smash the German leadership, and rebuild it from the ground up? Terrorism is founded in a belief that all their ills would go away if only the Evil Imperialist Americans would go home, or convert to Islam, or die, and this represents fundamentally flawed reasoning. The biggest problem of the average Middle Easterner isn’t the US, it’s his own corrupt government. That they fail to recognize this is primarily the fault of that same corrupt government.
Now, we may disagree on the means by which to convince them that it’s their governments that need to change, and not ours. However, simply sending our diplomats over to talk with the Saudis, for example, is going to achieve precisely squat. Giving the citizens there everything they ask of us wouldn’t stop terrorism, nor stop their hatred of us - for one, the state-run media would still blame all their ills on the US and Israel, and for another, it’s not even feasible (I, for one, don’t feel like converting to Islam). The proper approach is going to require some balance of force and negotiation. The proper ratio, of course, is up to debate.
Jeff
Ah. So the Palestinians have no legitimate grievance with the Israeli government? Arabs have no legitimate grievance with the US for supporting Israel and supplying its military with such powerful technology?
::cough cough:: Are nations propping up and supporting those governments to blame at all? 'Cuz if they are, we’ve got a problem… that might count as a legitimate grievance as well.
The governments over there are generally not popular, that’s part of why they have to be so authoritarian. But again, who supports them? Might this be a potential negative?
You’re jumping into the middle. Negotiation with Nazi Germany might not have been effective, but handling things diplomatically before the country became a very powerful military machine might have been very useful, yes.
Are you asserting that if the US - indeed, all outside nations - stopped having anything to do with the Middle East, that all of the corrupt governments would magically go away, and liberty and prosperity would spring up like daisies in spring? The US support of corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia is a problem, but it’s not the biggest problem. We certainly weren’t supporting Iraq this past decade, and I don’t recall his government going away on its own.
Sure, the Middle East has some legitimate gripes about the US, and about Israel. For that matter, we have some legitimate gripes about France. The point is, terrorism, particularly against the US, has at its root a mistaken perception that their biggest problems come from outside, rather than from within. As such, we’re pretty limited in how we address these problems. Sure, we withdraw from Saudi Arabia, cease all support of Israel… terrorists will still find a reason to hate us, because the governments of those nations need to continually paint someone as a scapegoat.
Jeff
**
My opinion is that we shouldn’t abandon our interests in the Middle East, but we create more problems than we need to with our current policies.
Whether we agree with the perception, some consider the United States an arrogant, hypocritical bully. Regardless of what veracity we’ll assign to that view, the fact that it exists can’t be dismissed. Whether or not you think someone is wrong doesn’t affect the fervor of their beliefs.
I feel that sometimes we chose to ignore the anger and bitterness that our hyporcrisy can cause. We can feel smug that any of our decisions is right because America is always the “hero” of the story, but that doesn’t make the rest of the world feel the same way. In a lot of cases, complaints are justified. Some become so angry that they’re willing to die to try to hurt us.
Terrorism will always be with us. It’s extremely hard to fight an ideaology. The death of one terrorist will inspire two more to step into his place. In trying to crush a mind-set, we could potentially make things worse.
In the past two years, I’ve cringed at many of our “diplomatic” moves, which appeared, to me, like poking a growling dog with a stick. If the kid down the street keeps throwing eggs at your house, will beating the shit out of his friends him make him stop, or will it only make him hate you more?
**
We weren’t supporting Iraq, but neither where we really hurting them. The only people that suffered were the Iraqi people. Saddam wasn’t bothered a bit.
Thus, my concern lies with the children of that country who will remember as adults years of hunger and the horror of falling bombs. He will partially blame Saddam, but how much of the blame will he assign to the sanctions pushed for by the U.S? What if his father died when we abandoned them after claiming we would support those who rose against Saddam during Gulf War I? I don’t know if the fact we finally destroyed Saddam’s regime will weigh heavily against it, especially if the new government in Iraq collapses due to factional infighting.
**
As I said, whether its mistaken or not doesn’t change the depth of their belief in it.
What makes you think that the scapegoat would always be the United States? After all, there are plenty of other sects and ethnicities in the immediate region which could be conveniently blamed if the US backed off.
We’re in a tough spot. We need to retain a foothold in the Middle East, but try to avoid making enemies by doing so. Accomplishing this would take extremely delicate and careful diplomacy and policy. Unfortunately, we’re seemingly charging ahead, damn the torpedoes. Instead of trying to work through problems, we issue ultimatums and threats.
Sure, we could go in there and drop a killoton of whoop-ass. We’re tough. We’ll win any fight we wish to pick, because we’re the biggest dog on the block. We’re unstoppable. Is that the right way to ensure good and lasting relations? It seems more prudent to me to coax current regimes than to constantly need to replace them.
By trying to make the world into the image we wish, we could enter a state of nearly constant war. Introducing democracy does not always ensure an ally. Twenty years from now, what kind of regime could be voted into power by a bitter populace in Iraq or Afghanistan?
I said nothing of the sort (nor did I propose stopping having anything to do with the Middle East; I’m not an isolationist). You said the grievances of people in the Middle East against the US weren’t valid, and I disagree completely. Is there also scapegoating &c? Yes.
The governments wouldn’t vanish, but it’s not right for the Unitd States to prop up these despots just because it suits our momentary interests. If the people are suffering, and they most certainly are, we shouldn’t be facilitating it. At the most, if we have to buy oil from, say, Saudi Arabia, we should be doing everything possible to ensure human rights for the people there. Perhaps they’ll be less inclined to hate us. You can’t stop a terrorist who is determined to kill himself from doing so, but you can work to ensure that people won’t empathize with the cause. I don’t think that’s so unreasonable or (if anyone commits to it) so difficult.
I agree with everything you said except the 9/11 attacks. The whole thing was poorly planned and cost them nothing except the upkeep for sleeper cells and some flying lessons. The pilot training they took was insufficient to fly the planes they used. It was pure dumb luck they were successful because they exceeded the structural limits of the aircraft. The wings should have come off.
What is scary about 9/11 is the patience involved. The plot to use aircraft against the WTC was on the laptop of convicted WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef (1993). It was not implemented because they thought it would take too much time and effort. It was a very single minded mission.
I would expect similar, large-scale attempts against the US. What will reduce the numbers of events are the current anti-terrorist efforts AROUND THE WORLD. Even the Saudi’s are getting into the act. The cooperative efforts of all the major nations will illuminate the rogue nations quickly. That, combined with a 7 day defeat of a real army, makes nations such as Iran and Syria realize what can be done. If we can just keep France from issuing French passports to Iraqis we might make some headway.
Personally, given the CNN article I mention in this thread, I think the answer to december is plainly: not quite yet.
OTOH, to be fair, I do think it might not have as much relevance as we may think… Hmm.
I call Godwin…
Thanks for coming, everyone. Please drive safely.
-
As usual, December makes a wild right-wing assumption in his thread title. ‘Terrorist attacks drop’. Where? Chechnya? South America?
Of course you mean terrorist attacks only on the US, don’t you? I haven’t noticed how Bush’s incredible grasp of foreign (“Mr. President, that means abroad … err … somewhere you don’t go”) relations has sorted out the Middle East. Given that the US spends billions each year arming Israel, is that part of the War working? Or don’t foreigners killed by terrorism count?
Answer that, December! Learn the ridiculousness of your brand of ‘logic’! Why you recently posted news of a ‘war zone’ terrorist-type incident at the UN! What is Bush doing about that outrage? Absolutely nothing!
- And how is the Republican ‘War on Drugs’ going? I haven’t heard that the Drug Tsar has stepped down, saying “My job is done - no American takes illegal drugs anyomre.”
I think you mean that before and during WW2, the Nazis had a program of genocide against the Jews.
Which is exactly what the US did for years. Or don’t you know any history?
Apparently you don’t know any history. Britain, their Empire and allies fought Germany, Italy and Japan for years all over the World. (See, that’s why we called it a World War.) The Russians made a disgraceful pact with the Nazis, but then reacted to Hitler’s treachery, taking millions of military and civliian casualties.
Only after Pearl Harbour did the US came in.
And you call it ‘we were correct to go in there’.
Do you work for Bush? Are you in his Foreign Relations department?
You really think all terrorism is to do with the US? How stupid are you? Since you’re so ignorant of anything that doesn’t involve US casualties, I’ll explain. There has been terrorist activity in Northern Ireland for decades. Thousands of civilians have been blown up or shot in terrorist atrocities. Countries like Libya supplied arms and bombs to the terrorists, and cash flowed from the US to pay for them.
But according to you, 'Terrorism is founded in a belief that all their ills would go away if only the Evil Imperialist Americans would go home, or convert to Islam, or die.'
Pathetic.
I hope you don’t dream about innocent Irish children being blown apart, funded by US money.
This is what we in the business call a “contradiction.”
december wrote:
I don’t see Powell taking credit for the decline in terror; just stating it is harder for them to operate.
I don’t doubt this drop could be a statistical anomaly. However, all I see is Powell saying it is harder to operate for terrorists.
On another note, why did terrorist activity decline so much in Latin America?
Because the one action of the president of Peru when he had a hostage crisis–kill all the kidnappers. The other Latino presidents are taking that hard line in dealing with them.
Columbia is still bad.
DIA Director Jacoby, in his Feb 11, 2003 statement for the record for the senate select committee on intelligence, “Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States” said that 2002 was the most active year for Al Quaida.
december, what do you make of the recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Maybe the US policy is not working as you expected? http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/13/saudi.blast/index.html
Sailor, are you really as happy as you sound about these attacks?
Please read the thread. My conclusion was that those who boasted about the statistical improvement were abusing the statistics. The reduction was in Latin America. I appreciate capacitor pointing out the reason and SimonX pointing out that not everyone was claiming a spurious improvement.
al-Qae/ida - these "u"s irritate me.
Next from december: “sailor, have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah, no kidding. Is the part where sailor sounded “happy” written in invisible ink?