Saddam tried to assasinate George Bush Sr.
Saddam paid families of Palistinian suicide bombers $25,000 rewards. (I don’t see the reason to limit an examination of Iraq to only the US as you requested.)
Saddam used WMD’s on his own people.
Free, democratic countries just don’t act like this generally speaking. I’m shocked that I’m encountering so much resistance on this point.
You’re kidding, right? Both Clinton AND G.W. Bush tried to assissinate bin Laden, and G.W. Bush tried to assissinate Saddam.
And frankly, your backpedaling on the other statement is unconvincing. You made a blanket statement:
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see any context in which this statement would only be referring to countries that directly attacked the U.S.A., as you are now trying to claim was your meaning. It feels more like you lost the argument and you’re trying to weasel out of it.
In hindsight, that is believed to be a myth, originated by the Kuwaitis.
Well, by that reasoning, Saddam also supported anti-Iranian terrorists to attack Iran, yet I don’t see you condemning that.
Yeah, we just give 'em the WMDs to use in their terrorist activities instead. That’s acceptable. :rolleyes:
There’s not anything I can do except to give you my word. You can believe me or not.
Cite?
I condemn it. Happy now? :rolleyes:
WTF are you talking about?
Saddam got his weapons from the United States. That’s what he’s talking about.
It seems to me that the OP was asking mostly about defensive measures.
Step 1: Properly define terrorism.
By defining it as “evil things that Middle East extremists wish to do to us”, and only addressing the factors contributing to that problem, we have sone absolutely nothing to thwart the Timothy McVeighs of the world. OK City isn’t even old enough to qualify as history yet in my book, folks. How did we forget all about it?
John Hinckley tried to assassinate Reagan.
I already quoted the Baader-Meinhof attempt on Nixon’s life.
And US citizens sent money to families of IRA terrorists.
Yes, that was naughty. He was sent them by the US to use in the Iran-Iraq war only.
The reason that you encounter so much resistance is that you keep saying things that are instantly disproved. Like the above.
And earlier you said ‘Terrorists aren’t coming out of countries like England, France …’.
This suggests to me not that you are a racist, but that you have no clue about terrorism.
I’d fight terrorism tactically and intelligently with small deployments of elite forces, subterfuge, and reasonable changes in national security without the wild flailing, massive invasions, subsequent war, and occupation as a thin guise for oil imperialism. I’d encourage awareness over fear, perspective over neurosis, and dilligence over paranoia. I’d implement our resources more effectively and pointedly.
No, I don’t miss your point - I just don’t agree.
Free countries have just as much of a track record of supporting terrorist organizations as totalitarian countries. We have supported terrorist organizations all over the world when it suited our purposes. We just call them ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘allies in the war on drugs’ or ‘allies in the war on terrorism.’ Hell, we gave money to the Taliban, the Shah of Iran, as well as multiple totalitarian dictators in South and Central America who all used terror tactics to control their populations and exported terror to boot. Families in the US gave loads of money to the IRA, and Muslim families in the US have supported Hizbollah.
A single terrorist in a free state can get his mission done far more easily than one in a totalitarian state. Half the time, the free state ain’t even looking for him until after he does his thing. Witness Timothy McVeigh, the Sept 11 hijackers, as well as the 1st World Trade Centre bombers. We didn’t even know they were there until the ‘event’ they had planned took place. No totalitarian state worth it’s salt would allow that situation to exist, and that is one distinct advantage of totalitarianism - institutional paranoia is a way of life.
Look - most of the time we have good intentions, and I absolutely believe our overall mission is righteous and just. But don’t assume we’re always the guys with the white hats on. Some of the shit the US has pulled in the past has been both dark and bloody.
Hmm… ask the Turks if they’d be interested in restoring the Ottoman Empire? :dubious:
Reposted from the "What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be? thread, which has gotten lost in refighting both Iraq and the recent election. Since this thread didn’t get seriously hijacked before going dormant, maybe the odds are better for a discussion here:
First priority, for now and forever, should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Think 9/11 changed things? If terrorists set a nuke off in one of our major cities, it would make 9/11 look trivial, both in terms of the actual carnage, and in terms of the country’s response.
This means allocating the resources to secure nuclear materials in the former USSR as swiftly as is reasonably possible. This means making nuclear arms nonproliferation and control our #1 diplomatic priority. This means pursuing a foreign policy that doesn’t put small, nasty countries in the position of feeling they need nukes as a poison pill to keep us from invading. This means rewinding the clock three years and not invading Iraq. (Oops.)
Because, let’s face it, since terrorists don’t themselves have access to sophisticated engineering facilities, the most likely way for them to get a nuke in the next 15-20 years is for them to obtain a working bomb from a country that already has them, such as Iran or Pakistan. So our first goal should be to minimize the number of Irans and Pakistans that have nuclear weapons. (Not sure how we best do that in a post-Iraq world, but it’s not the only seemingly insoluble problem our invasion of Iraq has created.)
At some point, we will have to worry about terrorists being able to build their own nukes if they get enough plutonium or U-235, but not just yet. But with that day in mind, we should give a high priority to controlling, accounting for, and regularly inspecting nuclear materials around the world.
We also need to keep an eye on developments with bio and chem weapons, to forestall the day when they can be used as weapons of mass destruction. (I took the position two years ago that they aren’t WMDs yet, and I’ve seen no evidence to change my mind since.)
And we need to guard against terrorism by conventional means. This means that rather than simply have an airline-passenger-harassment program to give the public the impression they’re being protected (but without the reality), we need a more thoroughgoing program to inspect cargo coming into our ports and put on our planes. We’ve known this for three years, but little has been done. Similarly, we need to protect our nuclear and chemical plants.
Finally, there’s the terrorists themselves. They aren’t a static group, of course. Bush’s initial stated post-9/11 policy was the right approach: conduct a foreign policy that at the very least commands the respect of the bulk of people in the Islamic world, thereby drying up the sea in which Islamic terrorists swim. Then track down and capture or kill those engaged in international terrorism.
(FWIW, Bush specified at the beginning that our concern is with international terrorism. Terrorism that’s one country’s domestic politics carried out by violent means is primarily the concern of that country. There will be exceptions to this, but a policy on terrorism need not address them up front.)
The diplomatic policy should be consistently pro-democratic, but not one that seeks to gain democracy through drastic upheavals: such upheavals are, in the short run, a cure worse than the disease. Neither France in 1791 nor Iraq in 2004 was a good place to live. But in the past 30-some years, we’ve seen countries like Taiwan and South Korea transition from authoritarianism to democracy; we need to suss out how best to nudge countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Syria down this path. Steady pressure on such governments to allow and give greater freedom over time to opposition groups must be part of this picture. We may wind up with variations on Islamic democracy or even theocracy, but that’s the risk we take. We need to make it clear that if that’s what they choose, we’re prepared to live with that - as long as they don’t support terrorism.
Both for purposes of diplomacy and antiterrorist intelligence, we need to actively encourage and support not just study of the appropriate languages such as Arabic and Farsi, but study of the culture as well. Our biggest problem in operating in the Islamic world in any manner, be it trying to win hearts and minds, working with friendly intelligence agencies in the region, or playing cat-and-mouse with al-Qaeda operatives, is our poor understanding of the cultural milieu in which we must operate. FWIW, our intelligence agencies are trying hard to recruit speakers of Arabic and so forth, but the shortage is such that they wind up stealing from one another. Hence the need to create more speakers of Islamic languages and students of Islamic culture.
And we need more Special Forces troops and more CIA operatives to track down and capture or kill terrorists.
That’s my Democratic antiterror policy. Most of this is stuff that John Kerry ran on, this past fall. He regards nuclear proliferation as the #1 threat. He advocated a speedup of our efforts to help Russia control its nuclear material. He advocated inspecting containers being shipped into the country, air cargo, nuclear and chemical plants. He wanted to expand the Special Forces. And so forth.
Two other things we need to do, long-term, to aid our antiterrorist efforts. One is to reduce domestic demand for petroleum. As long as we depend on large quantities of imported oil, we’ll be hindered in our antiterrorist efforts by our dependence on countries such as Saudi Arabia. We can’t be honest about the Wahhabi role in promoting Islamic extremism as long as we have to kiss Saudi butt.
The other thing we need to do is become fiscally responsible once again as a nation. As long as we depend on foreign central banks to hold dangerously large quantities of our debt, there’s a lot of actors out there whose interests may often be different from ours who we have to keep happy. On occasion, pleasing them may interfere with what we need to do to combat terrorists. For a great power, we’re not in a great position these days. We need to be a good deal freer than we are right now from the entanglements of debt and energy dependency in order to be able to chart our own course.
An excellent post. I’d have said so in the other thread, but it would have been lost in the rancor.
I second the pig blood approach. They really believe that nonsense. Worked in WWII.
But I think we could’ve spent the billions we did in Iraq tightening up home security. Securing the borders, more personnel in the investigational arena.
Regarding the pig’s blood thing…I’ve heard that one before. Is it actually true? Sounds like an urban legend kind of thing.
As for the rest, jimpatro, I’m sorry, but that suggestion should get you ridiculed for wanting to use a “police approach” to the problem. Not that I disagree with it, but bashing people for suggesting that method is quite fashionable. Or maybe, since the election, it’s possible for righties to accept a good idea, even if it was espoused by Kerry.
-Joe
I can’t find a link right now, but it was used, I believe by the US Marines in the Phillipines during the War of the Running Dogs (Phillipine War of Independence)…
The Muslim rebels who were killed were buried in a pig skin; it was a useful terror tactic by the Marines. I think it was on Mindinao, but I am looking for a link now…
It’s part of their long-term grudge against the US.
See how it went from pig’s blood (what I’d heard before, and what was already used in this thread) to pig’s skin? That’s part of what makes me suspect UL-hood. Add that to the fact that, if it worked someone would be using it as a tactic, and I’m still not convinced.
-Joe
Thanks, minty. Like you, I’ve given up all hope of discussing antiterrorism policy in the other thread. They’re not only arguing Iraq again, but also debating the recent election.
Last night, I saw a link at DailyKos to (WARNING: MASSIVE PDF FILE) The Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication which is an absolutely remarkable document. The text proper is about 85 pages, and while I haven’t had a chance to read straight through it yet, I’ve been skimming and bouncing around through it. If I could have one wish right now that didn’t involve undoing the results of the last two Presidential elections, my wish would be that Bush would read this document.
Since it’s in PDF form, I won’t be quoting large chunks of it, since I’d mostly have to type them up myself. But fortunately, Kos has a few long quotes on his site. From page 35:
From page 40:
[quote]
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.
[ul]
[li] Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.[/li]
[li] Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World – but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.[/li]
[li] Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination. [/li]
[li] Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack – to broad public support. [/ul] [/li][/quote]
From pp. 39-40:
Here’s some I’m typing in myself:
From p. 20 (italics in original):
The odd thing is, Bush (and especially his alter ego, Karl Rove) thoroughly understand this concept, at least as it applies to domestic politics. But (p.41):
The report then discusses how we’ve simplified the Islamic world into a picture of good and bad Muslims, with the Bad Muslims being the terrorists and their sponsors, and the Good Muslims being everyone else. They propose a spectrum of Muslims, going Jihadis - Islamists - Sympathizers - Uncommitted - Regimes, with Muslims sliding back and forth along this spectrum. However, according to the report, movement among regular Muslims is from “soft” opposition to the U.S., to “hard” opposition. And (p. 46)
Hence:
The ‘war’ being the war on terror.
They make a couple of large points that I’m firmly in agreement with: (1) Public diplomacy and strategic communication have to be at the heart of our antiterror strategy; and (2) there’s no way to divorce strategic communication from policy. The first, because it’ll only do us good to kill terrorists if they’re marginalized within the Islamic world - otherwise we create new terrorists by killing the old ones. And the second, because no amount of propaganda is going to overcome U.S. policies (Iraq, Palestine, support of secular Arab strongman rulers) that they have a strong antipathy towards.
With respect to Iran, Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state under* Clinton, has some good ideas. She makes the point that, though Bush has claimed we can’t add any value to the European negotiations with Iran because we’ve already applied as many sanctions to Iran as we can, we still have a number of prospective carrots to offer - plus the ultimate stick of military force:
The most important carrot, if we can credibly (in their eyes) offer it, is the guarantee that we won’t militarily attack them if they give up their nuclear ambitions, and allow inspections to verify that. The possibility of American military intervention is one of the biggest reasons why nations that are on our shit-list might feel they need nukes, and accordingly, it’s why European diplomacy alone can’t do the job.
At any rate, it’s clear that there are diplomatic options we haven’t tried with Iran that we could try, and there will be similar avenues to pursue with any future Irans. As Rice mentions, if Iran is determined to acquire nukes no matter what, then no amount of diplomacy can succeed. But we can’t find out until we try. And it’ll be easier to persuade Europe, Japan, etc. to join in sanctioning Iran for going nuclear, or to support us if we try to blow up the Iranian nuclear facilities, if we have played all of our diplomatic cards first.
No, not ‘under’ in THAT way! (At least not AFAWK.) Get your minds out of the freakin’ gutter! 