| Author | Message | ||
     Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 69 Registered: 5-2006  |
How would you pursue the Global War Against Terrorism? In my short time here on MOL I have read many posts that are disdainful of the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq. I think in all cases the criticism is coming from people on the political left who dismiss the neocon foreign policy objectives of improving our security at home by replacing totalitarian regimes in the Middle East with democratic governments that will be less likely to foster Islamic fanaticism and terrorism. As I have pointed this out in other threads the level of hostility directed towards this foreign policy position by people on the left is unusual considering that until recently this foreign policy has been the purview of the Democrat Party. Liberals from Woodrow Wilson’s efforts to make the “world safe for democracy”, to JFK’s “pay any price, bear any burden”, to Clinton’s Balkans campaign, have always been the ones accused by conservatives of starry-eyes idealism in their foreign policy. This foreign policy has migrated to the Republican Party and is now derided by the left. If this is your position and you believe that our current efforts are doomed to failure, what would you propose? Would you prefer pursing the further to the right Realist foreign policy that we have pursued in the Middle East for decades prior to 9-11? A Realist, with its realpolitik underpinnings, would argue that the world is the way the world is and we should not try to change it. Rather, we should just deal with it and get the best deal we can for or nation in the process. A Realist is less concerned with the moral implications of foreign policy and more concerned with power and security. The Chinese and Russians are practitioners of Realism. Or would you prefer the even further to the right traditionalists today called paleocons? They tend to be isolationist in nature and would probably not care if the world were burning down around them as long as no one bothered us. They believe that our security is predicated not on democracy or freedom abroad but on the ability of American power to protect us. Or would you prefer the other side of the political spectrum? This could be a muscular anti-totalitarian foreign policy tempered by more regard for international institutions and world opinion. It could also be left wing isolationism that contends that the world is too good for America versus the right who think America is too good for the world. Also consider if Iraq is simply another front in the Global War Against Terrorism, along with the home front, the Western European Front, and the recently re-opened front in Lebanon to name a few. If you think Iraq is not part of the GWOT, why? If we are not fighting Islamic terrorists cut from the same ideological cloth as the 9-11 hijackers, then who do you think we are fighting in Iraq and what motivates them? At any rate I thought this could be an interesting thread. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1870 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's false premise, Tap. Before we went into Iraq, there were no terrorist threats there. Ever since, however, it's become a hornet's nest. But to answer your question a bit, the first thing I'd do is change the name. You fight wars against people and countries, not tactics. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3788 Registered: 3-2004  |
This is suggested as a start: I think Israel has a problem in turning to the US. I think Israel has to develop some diplomatic tools of its own. It has to take diplomacy into its own hands. First, reach out diplomatically to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco, Algeria, and hold summits with them. Also Egypt and Jordan. Sit down with the leaders of these nations, if they will come, or offer behind the scenes meetings between the highest level of government in each country. Plan regular, scheduled meetings with these leaders, to discuss political, and geopolitical issues. Israel HAS to show some good faith with the more moderate of its neighbors in order to move toward a communicative stance with its less friendly neighbors. On another front, Israel has to allow Palestinians back into Gaza and demonstrate through behavior and treatment of these folks, a level of respect. Provide services, water, police protection, small acts of governance, rather than colonialist suspicious treatment and bureaucratic behavior toward them. Lose the Kalishnikovs when they patrol the streets, for example. Then, on another front, go to the United Nations and ask for help. A polite, humble posture toward all those resentful, disappointed nations at the UN, who really don't like this behavior on the part of Israel, would be a good thing to do. Explain clearly, and in writing, a report perhaps, why they did what they just did. Offer evidence. Offer clear explanations. Offer real reasons for their attack, in a posture, and with a stance of respect. Right now, Israel is seen by the world as enormously arrogant. Lose the arrogance. Learn how to offer clear statements of evidence, and how to listen to critics and respond respectfully to them. Lose the belief that Israeli blood is more precious than anyone else's. Learn as a nation that they are citizens among nations, and they, as other nations, are lucky to be so. Treasure their own sovereignty, and that of other nations. Once their moderate Arab neighbors have come, one by one, to meet with Israeli leaders, reach out to the less moderate ones. When the less moderate neighbors (now Lebanon, Iraq perhaps, certainly Iran) see that other Middle Eastern countries can speak with Israel without repercussion, they too might be willing to come for talks. Israel needs to make a statement to the world that they realize they have a problem and are willing to work on it. That would make a point of humility that is currently totally lacking in Israel's national image. Then, finally, reach out to the new extremists, including Hezbollah and Hamas, BUT WITH the help of the moderate and (if they become willing to help) the less moderate neighbors. All this takes years. That's what it takes. But if you want to survive in a difficult neighborhood, as some of us have had to do, we learn how to get along with our difficult neighbors by showing our earnestness, our hard=working nature and our good character. It could work, as these are the traits that gave the United Nations its desire to grant Israel nationhood to begin with. Incidentally, since Bush really isn't able to be the intermediary, I would turn to Putin for help in getting nations to the table. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 950 Registered: 10-2005 |
I think the world can be divided into three groups: 1) Those that believe there is NO answer to the problems of the Middle East, therefor Stay far far away and leave them to suffer. 2) Those that believe there IS an answer to the problems in the Middle East, and therefore we're obliged to help find it. 3) Those that believer there is NO answer, but that we're obliged to try anyway, knowing it's a hopeless situation. I think our foreign policy vacillates between the three since World War II. I personally flip-flop between #1, and #2. So if I were President/Commender in Chief, my policy would involve invasions followed by withdrawls, followed by invasions....etc.. etc... er....wait....isn't that what we've basically done? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3789 Registered: 3-2004 |
We withdrew? Where? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1679 Registered: 10-2004  |
"Global War Against Terrorism" Is a total misnomer, misdirection and impossibility. It has been discussed many times here. There can be no war against terrorism because terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. Our "policy" of encouraging democracies is hypocritical when this policy comes at the end of the barrel of a gun. You have now twice presented neo-con ideology as a democratic ideology, and neo-cons as having a democratic origination. Now I have no idea where the neo-con ideology originated but I sincerly doubt that if this was a democratic ideal at its inception that it is still a democratic ideal in its current state. I dont see that labeling American foreign policy is helpful one way of the other. The goal of American foreign policy should be to ensure that our citizens are safe from attack. It should not be as an aggressor. We should be pursuing our international goals through diplomacy and not war. We should defend ourselves and enlist and recruit to our side nations whose goals are aligned with ours in order to help to make the earth a safer place. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7553 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dave23 says he'd fight global terror by changing the name...That'll work!  | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 428 Registered: 5-2005  |
I don't have the answer, but I know what we should NOT do. We should not be Realists. Nothing could be more stupid than trying to deal with the world as it is. We should remake it into what we want it to be, which is a world of freedom and democracy. Anyone who can't see that's our only hope is a moron. President Bush understands that we can't be bogged down by Realists and their realpolitik. We make our own reality when we send in our military to take down all the supporters of terrorism. That's how to fight the GWOT, and any wimpy libs who disagree don't care about our safety. When the last terrorist is dead, we've won. | ||
| Mtam Citizen Username: Mtam Post Number: 117 Registered: 11-2005 |
Tulip, Excuse me--Israel has tried to negotiate with every single neighbor, even those that did not recognize them as a state--what do you think those delegates were doing in Jordan right now? In fact, Israel has been discussing with Egypt the situation during this exact crisis. Israel has asked the UN repeatedly to enforce the agreement of disarming Hezbollah, and this has not come to be. I think you need to follow this situation a bit more carefully and do your homework before you make these broad statements. You're putting NO ownness on the Arab neighbors, many of which are hostage to militant factions, and the voices within their country which see any negotiation with Israel as a sign of weakness. This particular government was elected on the platform of leaving Gaza now, and the West Bank in 4 years. They are faced with a militant Hamas government and at the very moment that the "moderates" as you say were trying to claim the political space, there was an incursion, a sabotage by Hamas. If you were to learn more about the kinds of discussions that take place within Israel, you'd realize they are far more along in discussing how full withdrawal might be done, what kind of port Gaza might have (which must be negotiated with Egypt). Unfortunately, the media and discourse in this country polarizes and simplifies. There's a much greater variety of opinion, and slowly, in the Arab world, too. Do I think the Israelis are acting with excessive force? Yes, absolutely. I don't think bombing the Palestinian Foreign Ministry accomplishes anything, for instance. I think the Israelis are playing into the hands of the radicals. Do I wish that Israel could turn to the G-8 and European powers for help in brokering a negotiation? Yes, but please, don't tell me that you think the Europeans are going to eagerly jump in. So tell me, what is an appropriate response? You're giving no credence to the fact that this is not just about the specific Palestinian-Israeli conflict--this is a regional issue, in which Iran and Syria are involved, and violence is being used cynically to radicalize. You're also giving no credence to the fact that Israel is a country with a wide spectrum of views, many of whom were dismayed at the pullout from Gaza and fear for security. Olmert has to balance that population along with others, if his aim is to show that pull outs are in Israel's best interests, which of course they are. I don't mind criticizing Israel--I've been there and traveled extensively there and interviewed many, on all spectrums, include, mind you, young people who have refused to serve in combat due to the occupation. I just mind when there is a lack of historical context and a complete naivete about the forces they are up against within the Arab world. | ||
| MBJ Citizen Username: Mbj Post Number: 224 Registered: 10-2005 |
GOP man, your act's getting old. Time to grow up. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 611 Registered: 8-2003 |
I agree with Hoops that the use of 'global terror' is a misnomer. It's like the World Wars when only a few countries were actually invloved in both. There are regional problems which demand regional solutions. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. They are many in this world including those in democratic nations that regard the US as a terrorist force. Of course, most Americans see it radically differently. For starters, resolve the Palestinian issue to the satisfaction of both parties which means neither can impose a unilateral peace agreement and the US should appear as a genuinely neutral partner in brokering a peace deal. Also, stop treating Israel like a client-state and link aid to genuine democratization in the Arab world. Presently, that is not the case in a nation like Egypt. The more they support dictatorial regimes, the more radicalized societies will become. If the US wants democratic elections in Pak then should also demand it in Saudi Arabia. No double standards here. Resolve the Kashmir issue (the hotsopt in South Asia) to the satisfaction of the Kashmiris and being an optimist, I propose that Kashmir experience some political automomy from both India and Pakistan which have to demonstrate the political will to make certain compromises. Let the US reduce its number of bases across the world and genuinely encourage democratic elections and not destroy regimes that do not serve its national interests. The backlash that we see in Latin America is a clear pointer to the resistance that is gaining ground against America the Empire.If they want to encourage political moderates in other parts of the world, especially the Arab world, start practising it at home instead of pandering to the ultra-conservative base for short-term gains. It is only when America gains credibility in the eyes of the others that anti-american sentiment will decline the world over and right now there is a serious credibility issue with regard to the American foreign policy. They cannot willy-nilly violate the sovereignty of other nations and appropriate their natural resources and more importantly, the US should play by international law. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3791 Registered: 3-2004 |
Well, pardon my ignorance, but let me give you an example of how this whole thing seems a bit irrational. If, in fact, one of Israel's compaints and reasons for this recent incursion is that Lebanon will not resist Hezbollah, then why have they just attacked the Lebanese Army installation? How, in the world, should Lebanon have any authority against Hezzbollah without their army? It's a rhetorical question, because no one in Maplewood can answer for the strategy being used now by Olmert, I would presume. It's just mysterious as to why there are such inconsistencies in this recent...event. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1871 Registered: 5-2001 |
I got a letter and the postage was due I never shoulda read it but returned it to you I never got such a dumb letter before Ain't gonna read 'em, don't send me no more | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5319 Registered: 9-2001  |
"Israel needs to make a statement to the world that they realize they have a problem and are willing to work on it." Who in the world doesn't already know that? Tulip, the world has always known that Israel has a problem, and it's the world that has to help them solve it... The world crisis we face is not a United States, Israel, Palestine, United Kingdom, German, French, Iraq, Iran, Japan, China, Russian etc. problem, it's a world problem. The world through the UN has to clearly say what it means and mean what it says! If they "can" do that, we will have world peace, if they "can't," then IMHO, the only real voice of reason is the US, and that's the bottomline! If anyone on this Board thinks any other nation on the planet should have the last word on the matter, they should pack their bags and move there... | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 953 Registered: 10-2005 |
I should think that if a radical branch of Texans decided to attack Mexico by taking Mexican Army soldiers hostage, and firing Rockets at Mexican Cities, that Mexico would have a right to respond, especially if the US Fed govt refused to do anything about it. Particularly if that branch of radical Texans had previously reached out to Japan (who ALSO hates Mexicans) and recieved enormous quantities of military supplies for the sole purpose of attacking/destroying Mexico). | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 71 Registered: 5-2006 |
I agree that Global War Against Terrorism is a lousy term. I used it as a term of convience. But beyond that..... | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3792 Registered: 3-2004 |
ajc: I am not quite sure what you mean. Israel is acknowledging it may be part of the problem? I think not. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2765 Registered: 5-2001 |
Perhaps this is a start (to fighting the war against terrorism) July 17, 2006 - The New York Times The Arabs Militia Rebuked by Some Arab Countries By HASSAN M. FATTAH BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 16 — With the battle between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah raging, key Arab governments have taken the rare step of blaming Hezbollah, underscoring in part their growing fear of influence by the group’s main sponsor, Iran. Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, “These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.” Prince Faisal spoke at the closed-door meeting but his words were reported to journalists by other delegates. The meeting ended with participants asserting that the Middle East peace process had failed and requesting help from the United Nations Security Council. It is nearly unheard of for Arab officials to chastise an Arab group engaged in conflict with Israel, especially as images of destruction by Israeli warplanes are beamed into Arab living rooms. Normally under such circumstances, Arabs are not blamed, and condemnations of Israel are routine. But the willingness of those governments to defy public opinion in their own countries underscores a shift that is prompted by the growing influence of Iran and Shiite Muslims in Iraq and across the region. The way some officials see it, Arab analysts said, Israel is the devil they know, but Iran is the growing threat. “There is a school of thought, led by Saudi Arabia, that believes that Hezbollah is a source of trouble, a protégé of Iran, but also a political instrument in the hands of Iran,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, a Jordanian sociologist. ‘This school says we should not play into the hands of Iran, which has its own agenda, by sympathizing or supporting Hezbollah fighting against the Israelis.” Hanna Seniora, a Palestinian analyst with the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, lauded the Arab opposition to Hezbollah on Sunday. “For the first time ever, open criticism was heard from countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan against the unilateral actions carried out by radical organizations, especially Hezbollah of Lebanon,” wrote Mr. Seniora, who favors coexistence with Israel and opposes radical Islam. “It became clear and beyond doubt that the most important Arab countries did not allow their emotions to rule their judgment.” The willingness of the leading governments to openly defy Arab public opinion, which has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, underscores the readjustment of risks Arab governments say they face. It also reflects pressure from Washington on its Arab allies to stand against Hezbollah’s actions, American officials said. At the Group of 8 summit meeting in Russia, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted with approval that a number of Arab countries had criticized Hezbollah. That criticism could pressure Hezbollah to give up its weapons. It could also help American efforts to contain Iran. “Who’s benefiting?” asked a senior official of one of the Arab countries critical of Hezbollah who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “Definitely not the Arabs or the peace process. But definitely the Iranians are.” There may be no material proof of Iran’s involvement in the conflict, the senior official added, but all indications point to an Iranian role. Arab leaders have long been wary fof Iran. But with Iran exercising increased influence in Iraq and stirring the emotions of Arab and Muslim masses frustrated about the occupation of Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and America’s role in the region, fear of Iranian influence has increased. “You have Hezbollah, a Shiite minority, controlled by Iran, working, and the Iranians are embarrassing the hell out of the Arab governments,” said Riad Kahwaji, managing director of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai. “The peace process has collapsed, the Palestinians are being killed and nothing is being done for them. And here comes Hezbollah, which is actually scoring hits against Israel.” From its start in 1982, Hezbollah has relied on Iranian support and weapons, and logistical support from Syria. Iran has made no secret of its support for Hezbollah, and in recent months boasted to visiting scholars about providing it with missiles. Israel has accused Iran of providing Hezbollah with sophisticated weaponry and said Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard has trained guerrillas in Lebanon. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi, brushed aside the accusations on Sunday. Mr. Assefi denied that Iran had trained guerrillas in Lebanon, and added: “It is not true that we have sent missiles. Hezbollah is capable enough. The Zionist regime is under pressure.” A number of Lebanese have also publicly complained about Hezbollah, saying its attack on Israeli soldiers last Wednesday was carried out unilaterally and has drawn the country into a conflict it did not seek. At the Arab summit meeting on Saturday, Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, lashed back at the critics of Hezbollah, The Associated Press reported, demanding, “How can we come here to discuss the burning situation in Lebanon while others are making statements criticizing the resistance?” The countries supporting Syria included Yemen, Algeria and Lebanon. In a speech broadcast on Sunday, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, derided the Arab criticism. “It is clear that they are unable as governments and leaders to do anything,” he said. “The people of the Arab and Islamic world face a historic chance to achieve a historic victory against the Zionist enemy.” Some in Beirut said they were deeply disappointed in their fellow Arabs. “I am ashamed of the Arabs,” said Omar Ajaq, who with his family escaped the bombing of Beirut’s southern suburbs to a shelter in central Beirut. “They are utterly useless. People are now betting on the resistance. We no longer have faith in Arab leaders.” Reporting for this article was contributed by Nazila Fathi from Tehran, Suha Maayeh fromAmman, Jordan, Mona el-Naggar from Cairo and David E. Sanger from Vermont. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2766 Registered: 5-2001 |
Smarty, I liked your 9:41 am analogy. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3794 Registered: 3-2004 |
Some in Beirut said they were deeply disappointed in their fellow Arabs. “I am ashamed of the Arabs,” said Omar Ajaq, who with his family escaped the bombing of Beirut’s ... The article quotes a self-hating Arab. How can it be legitimate? Wendy, Why did they attack the Lebanese Army if they want help from Lebanon against Hezbollah? This just in: Did you hear? Iran says a prisoner release would be appropriate, when accompanied by a cease-fire. Surprised? | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 72 Registered: 5-2006 |
And while it may be an unpalatable thought to some, neo-conservatism does have its roots in liberalism and even socialist thought. This is not an opinion, it's a historical fact. It is not a traditional conservative outlook. Hence the prefix neo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2767 Registered: 5-2001 |
From tulip to Wendy:
Too bad this wasn't considered enough of a personal attack to get tulip banned. Why oh why would someone pose a question to someone without a brain? I'm sure the smart people on this board can hazard educated guesses. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 956 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thx Wendy  I worked hard on that one! Tulip, why would Wendy have answers to that type of question? Why don't you take a stab at answering your own question? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3795 Registered: 3-2004 |
Wendy, Do you actually want me to make a list of the insults you hurled at me before that one? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10144 Registered: 4-1997  |
Yes, it was a personal attack. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1680 Registered: 10-2004 |
Spinal Tap - again the neo conservatives today are not liberals. There are some democrats who subscribe to the neocon adgenda but they are not the majority. Interesting article on neo conservatism and 'liberals'. http://www.antiwar.com/barry/?articleid=4799 Really the liberals who moved over in the late 60s and 70s to the neocon adgenda did so by switching their allegiance from democrat to republican. Therefore they are no longer democrats and no longer supporters of the democratic platform. The PNAC membership list is filled with neocons. I submit that liberals make up a very small percentage of that membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC#Bush_Administration http://www.pnacinfo.us/doc/ | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3581 Registered: 5-2001  |
It is certainly bizarre how different political tenets and goals have swirled around and across the political spectrum, while the U.S. -- perhaps the world -- is as polarized as ever. Any strategies we employ to end terror attacks and bring widespread, lasting peace are undermined by hypocrisy. We say we want countries to be democratic, but we empower and assist dictators who are friendly to us until the arrangement ceases to be convenient. We say our strength derives from our diversity, but racism continues in this country and exists at the top levels of our government. We regard capitalism as some sort of sacred philosophy, but we massively subsidize certain industries. We claim to be a government by the people, for the people, but our government is more in the pocket of corporations than ever. We aver that all men are created equal, but we certainly don't treat all people, or even all children, equally. We claim to be a peaceful nation, but we seem to be addicted to militarism. Our lifestyle is extravagant but we give such a tiny percentage of our GDP to other countries. We claim to be champions of due process, but we are holding prisoners for years without charging them with any crime. We pollute more per capita than anyone else, but we are appalled and offended by the idea of committing to curtailing this. We claim moral superiority while the number of employed people who can't make ends meet grows. Domestically, I think our biggest problem can be summed up in one word: ethics. To improve the quality of our own society, I think the single greatest thing we can do is teach ethics to our kids continuously throughout their education so that we can collectively develop the understanding and will to purge much of the corruption and narrow self-interest that keeps us from producing good leaders. Also, add more arts curricula to schools across the country to keep students more engaged and more thoughtful about the world around them. Slowly and carefully implement a national health care plan, starting with a big boost to treatment and prevention of diseases/conditions endemic among the nation's poor children. Make it much easier for people to become citizens, and simultaneously make it much harder for people to work here illegally. (I know: instead of rounding them up and sending them back to their own countries, start sending them to, oh, Sudan, or North Korea. Yes, I'm kidding.) Internationally, we could drastically reduce the enmity against us by doing something very simple. Ask other countries quite openly -- in newspapers worldwide -- what specific, discrete tasks we can do for them within a certain expense and time limit? Require them to answer in similar fashion. And then, DO WHAT THEY ASK in a very open, public, carefully audited manner. We can afford it. One thing that we should NOT do is simply give cash. But we could build 25 state-of-the art desalinization plants and train local people to run them. We could construct sturdy, solar-powered buildings in the center of 1000 villages to serve as meeting halls and schools. We could provide x tons of vaccines and medicines as long as the countries provide proof that they are distributed and used as intended. We won't ask every country every year, but start with the neediest and develop the program gradually. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1681 Registered: 10-2004 |
wow. great post notehead. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 967 Registered: 10-2005 |
Notehead, I thought your post was really really really interesting. Some I agreed with, others I didn't. What on earth has this to do with the Global War on Terror? "while the U.S. -- perhaps the world -- is as polarized as ever."- Rethink that statement....WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Nuke Standoff of the 50's and again in the 80's were all very polarizing global events. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2568 Registered: 3-2003 |
Excellent post from Spinal Tap. "Liberals from Woodrow Wilson’s efforts to make the “world safe for democracy”, to JFK’s “pay any price, bear any burden”, to Clinton’s Balkans campaign..." You mean the one in which NATO, using 'disproportionate force' and 'collective punishment' in its 1999 assault on Belgrade, bombed a regional power station, leaving civilians without power or water? (And also, oops, the Chinese embassy, due to an inexcusable and embarassing intelligence failure.) | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3584 Registered: 5-2001 |
I meant politically. But you're right, maybe I should have said we're more polarized than we have been for 30 years. The relation to the "war on terror" is simply that people who are basically happy don't carry out terror attacks on others. If we work on our country internally, we will be better able to rationally identify and prioritize tasks to keep things peaceful externally. And if we make a very public and sincere display of asking others "what's wrong, what is our common ground, and what can we do for you?" then they're less likely to consider us "The Great Satan." | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2570 Registered: 3-2003 |
Also, this was certainly worth pointing out: "And while it may be an unpalatable thought to some, neo-conservatism does have its roots in liberalism and even socialist thought. This is not an opinion, it's a historical fact. It is not a traditional conservative outlook." | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1036 Registered: 4-2006 |
Spinal Tap- Posting this topic on MOL for some of our reasoning challenged posters is like offering candy to a diabetic. Shame on you. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 305 Registered: 1-2006 |
As an isolationist or paleo-con, I would pursue the war on "terror" along these lines: Withdraw US troops from all countries except Afghanistan. Use Afghanistan troops to hunt down Bin Laden. When Bin Laden is found, bury him alive, sewn into the skins of freshly slaughtered pigs. Send video to Al Jazeera. Withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Terminate all military and economic assistance to all countries. Withdraw from the UN. Give the UN 6 months to relocate to some nice 3rd world country. Turn UN building into homeless shelter. Etc., etc. Chances of this ever happening? About the same as me being chosen as MOL poster of the year. Cheers | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10165 Registered: 4-1997 |
It's worth a shot. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4502 Registered: 12-2001  |
"Use Afghanistan troops to hunt down Bin Laden." Didn't we try that once? If we had had more U.S. troops in Afghanistan for the initial fighting, we might have captured some more interesting fish. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 571 Registered: 3-2005 |
Or how about this: Quit driving SUVs. A lot of that money goes directly to support terrorist and terror activity. Ever wonder why George Bush and Dick Cheney didn't think of that one? GOP Man and dave23 are spot on. The idea that you can "fight a war against terrorism" is sadly and dangerously out of touch with reality. Human beings employ terror because it works. Israel was founded by people who used terror against Arab civilians. We dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima to demonstrate how many civilians we could kill in a flash to terrorize the Japanese into surrender. Pakistan is still our ally in the "global war on terror" and this week its terrorists killed 100 commuters in Mumbai. Maybe if we stopped living in a state of denial about the terrorism done by us and our allies, we would be smarter in diminishing terror in the world, even the terror being plotted by our enemies. Instead, we are increasing it -- as we tank up and cheer George Bush's crude and oily global politics, and his pinheaded macho man violence. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 990 Registered: 10-2005 |
Kathleen, please show me how owning SUV's supports Terrorist and Terrorist activity....I am fascinated at your proposition, and would love to see you logically explain it. You seem to have a different definition of Terrorist than what is currently widely used in practise, thus your broad sweeping statements. Your definition of terrorists seems to be anybody who kills another in an act of War or variation of War. It seems to me that you are broadening that definition because you dislike those who kill/mame/bomb/create war, which is TOTALLY FINE. However, by re-defining an otherwise widely used term (a terrorist), and using your own personal definition in your argument, you will not effectively communicate your views, and you only confuse and confound those you are trying to engage in conversation. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3095 Registered: 12-2001  |
Jello eating contest (if it were up to me). | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 1009 Registered: 7-2003 |
'Those who forget the past are condemmed to repeat it.' If you want to win against the terrorists, look at what the British did to the IRA. First, infiltrate the enemy, get people on the inside. Second, be prepared to fight a really ugly, messy war with little black and white and a lot fo grey areas. Third, solve the political problem, and eliminate the terrorists raison d'etre. Or get used to a life of fear. |
