Will the USA be safer?

[Joe DeFuria]

I think these terrorists are pretty darn "serious" about what they're up too as well. By upping the ante we're only playing further into their court.

Again, I simply disagree. We are playing into their court if they think they can get away with continued attacks without reprisal.

The mighty power picking on the poor pauper? The crusaders returning to finish off their job? Take your pick.

See my post on Hate Education.

Gosh, we're lucky that the UK didn't subscribe to a policy of 'war on terror' when generous hand outs were being collected for the IRA in the States, eh?

Yeah, though I don't recall the IRA killing 3000 people in one shot. Much like I recall terrorist acts like the bombing of the WTC didn't move us into a war on terror.

And yet, the terrorism still escalated, no?

Seriously, yes, I think it's fruitless. By attempting to bang terrorism into surpression we're only going to create more terrorism. So there we can agree to disagree.

Yeah, agree to disagree. I am troubled that you think there is basically no recourse.

What exactly is your solution to terrorism? It's not banging them into suppression....is it appeasement? Just ignore them?

I disagree. I believe the best and most responsible road to take is to look at the root causes of what drives people to terrorism, mainly poverty and oppression, and fix those in the correct manner.

Ironically, I think that's exactly what we are doing by ousting Saddam. Taking exactly those measures to oust a regime that inflicts poverty and oppression on it's people.

And I don't agree that invading Iraq is a good way to restore wealth and freedom there, btw. It's too heavy handed and makes the states look more like an oppresor to the impovrished.

So then you suggest maybe just lifting economic sanctions or giving Sadam money? All I see from you is "what doesn't work" inyour opinion, but what is your actiual solution? HOW do you restore "wealth and freedom" in a nation that is ruled by a tyrranical dictator?

And how do we do this in all other regions of the world in similar situations? Who are we to "meddle" in their affairs? I suppose it's up to the U.S. superpower to prop up oppressed nations, give them unlimited money and aid, and support them? Do we support oppressive regimes, as long as the citizens are not impoverished?

These guys are ready to die for what they believe in. I really don't see how the threat of violence will deter them?

Possibly...which is why they need to be destryoed. I can tell you with 100% certainty though, that lack of action will not deter them.

I think everyone sees terrorism as a serious threat. What differs is how other nations think the subject should be tackled.

Actully, I'm not convinced that everyone sees terrorism as a serious threat. But I'll go with that assumption.

I agree, the difference is how we should tackle it. I say we tackle it, not give in to their demands.

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

Yeah, though I don't recall the IRA killing 3000 people in one shot. Much like I recall terrorist acts like the bombing of the WTC didn't move us into a war on terror.

And yet, the terrorism still escalated, no?

I don't think that the period over which the deaths occur has much relevance, people are still dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/20/newsid_2525000/2525369.stm


CC

 

[RussSchultz]

Re: the IRA.


The difference is the US government does not support the IRA. Whereas the Iraqi government definately supports Fatah's martydom brigade.

 

[kyleb]

I say we tackle it, not give in to their demands.

i haven't seen anyone argueing to give into the demands of terroists latetly, however there are many of us who feel that "tackleing" is not the proper course of action.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i haven't seen anyone argueing to give into the demands of terroists latetly, however there are many of us who feel that "tackleing" is not the proper course of action.

And there are many of us who think that terrorists have no real demands other than to see the U.S. power limit our own freedoms, want to see us live in fear, and watch our society crumble.

And many of us think that by not confronting terrorists, that we are precisely giving in to those demands.

 

[kyleb]

i do know this Joe, i heard our president explain it just that way himself. however, i cannot bring myself to belive that they are risking life and limb for the sole purpose of making our life harder; that comes off to me as an effect rather than a motivation.

 

[Mariner]

The difference is the US government does not support the IRA. Whereas the Iraqi government definately supports Fatah's martydom brigade.

But then, the US government never did anything to stop the various American organisations (Noraid etc.) who were (and still are) collecting money to fund the IRA, a terrorist organisation who have killed many people.

An odd thing as far as I'm concerned is the way in which many Americans consider themselves 'Irish' because their Great Great Grandparents were born there before emigrating to the US. It is some of these people who have supported terrorist groups in their Irish 'homeland' despite having virtually no connection to the place. How do they now feel about those who support terrorism against the US?

 

[RussSchultz]

i cannot bring myself to belive that they are risking life and limb for the sole purpose of making our life harder; that comes off to me as an effect rather than a motivation.

Al Qaeda's stated aim is to bring about a global Islamic State, governed by the Sharia, though that may have been convinient trapping to get full support from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (The Taleban).

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

Re: the IRA.


The difference is the US government does not support the IRA. Whereas the Iraqi government definately supports Fatah's martydom brigade.

That was not the point we were making, rather that it was mentioned that we should root out all places that terrorists raise capital, and shut them down. We were merely pointing at that this includes the US (and almost certainly every other country in the world)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm


CC

 

[RussSchultz]

Right. Sorry about that.

Yes, I agree, we should go smack around anybody donating to 'terrorist' causes.

Or at least force them to visit with some of the children and widows/widowers/parents that their funding has brought about.

 

[kyleb]

you are not agreeing with Captain Chickenpants Russ. here is an example of agreement with his point:

i belive that in Iraq, as in other places in the world; we should not meet unreasonable demands or act in hostility against them. however we should work to resolve the injustices that lead to the terrorism with respect to the equality of man. much like the British should have given us representation in the government when we requested it as it would never have lead to the act of terrorism we know as the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

however we should work to resolve the injustices that lead to the terrorism with respect to the equality of man.

This comes with the naive assumption that all the parties in question are willing to resolve injustices, or even define injustices the as the same thing.

This is a nice assumption to start off with, and is the reason that "solving injustices" without viloence is the FIRST course of action. However, You can only captiulate, pacify, and accomodate so much, (say after 12 years and 17 resolutions later) until you run into an inherent conflict between

1) making furhter concessions in the interest of "non violence",
2) Those same confessions working against the solution to the problem of resolving injustice.

"Resolving Injustices" sounds great. The problem comes, as it always does, when the parties invloved have different ideas of what the resolution should be....or even what in fact the injustices are.

When it gets to that poing, it means that in order to avoid "stale mate", a(which means the continuance of injustice as the norm), SOMBODY has to change their mind. If Sadam doesn't believe his regime is cause for any injustice, but everoyne else does...WHAT IS THE SOLUTION.

There are only 4 options:

1) Do nothing. (Stalemate). Not acceptable to US because we all belive injustices are continuing.
2) We convince Sadam to change. We convince him that he is causing injustice, and the he needs to change.
3) WE change. We are convinced that Sadam is not a regime of injustice.
4) We force him out.

Presumably, option 4 is not viable to you Kyle. So what do you suggest? Do nothing?

I presume your answer is again simply "resolve the injustices with respect to the equality of man?". Go deeper. HOW do you resolve injustices if "the man" doesn't acknowledge injustices are going on?

 

[antlers]

The only people more eager than Bush for the U.S. attack on Iraq are Al Qaeda.

For them, every dead Iraqi will be a recruiting poster, every American soldier murdered during the occupation a moral victory. If Islamic radicals are killing us in Kuwait, a country we rescued ten years ago, what will they do to us in a country where we have killed directly tens of thousands (not to mention what the sanctions have done)?

If Saddam pulls a Samson-in-the-Temple stunt (which we are all but inviting him to do) that spreads smallpox, or destroys Iraq's oil fields, or even just interrupts shipping in the Persian Gulf--it is a victory for Al Qaeda, for the west will be hurt the most due to the disruption of our economy. If the U.S. is goaded into a devastating retaliation (our own use of WMD) with concomitant loss of life to Iraqi civilians, it will allow Al Qaeda to be all the more convincing when they claim that we are at war with Islam.

Iraq will present the opportunity for the kind of failed state (actually three of them; the Kurdish north, the Arab area around Baghdad, and the Shiite south) where a terrorist group can exert a lot of influence.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The only people more eager than Bush for the U.S. attack on Iraq are Al Qaeda.

Yeah...just like Afghanistan....

 

[antlers]

Yeah...just like Afghanistan....

Except they were in Afghanistan and had a lot to lose. Al Qaeda has very little to lose in Iraq; we on the other hand have a lot to lose:

• ]250,000 U.S. troops; there were nowhere near that many in Afghanistan.
• Iraqi oil fields; Afghanistan has no resources of comparable value.
• The possibility that Saddam will use WMD in the battlefield, against Israel, or against civilian targets in the West. Afghanistan had no such capability.

In Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan, the risk/reward ratio is heavily in Al Qaeda's favor.

You have been duped into thinking that the Iraqi invasion is a straightforward extension of our policy in Afghanistan. The relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq is very different than the relationship between Al Qaeda and Afghanistan--it is more like the relationship Al Qaeda maintained (until quite recently) with Pakistan.

 

[Vince]

Except they were in Afghanistan and had a lot to lose. Al Qaeda has very little to lose in Iraq; we on the other hand have a lot to lose:

• ]250,000 U.S. troops; there were nowhere near that many in Afghanistan.
• Iraqi oil fields; Afghanistan has no resources of comparable value.
• The possibility that Saddam will use WMD in the battlefield, against Israel, or against civilian targets in the West. Afghanistan had no such capability.

In Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan, the risk/reward ratio is heavily in Al Qaeda's favor.

Whats the Risk/Reward ratio become when Saddam becomes a nuclear power? Whats the Risk/Reward ratio instead of just giving $15,000 per suicide bomber, Iraq begins giving WMD. Whats the Risk/Reward ratio when the terrorist training camps he has outside of Baghdad (where they have a 727 to teach hijacking) reaches critical mass and WMD proliferation blossoms?

Whats the Risk/Reward ratio of a 10kt nuclear device detonated during a sporting event or celebration in a major population centre?


You can't lead a country, afraid to act because of Risk/Reward ratios. They did that in the '30s and we've paid the price. We've done it in the '90s with Al-Qaeda and we paid the price. We will not do it again

You have been duped into thinking that the Iraqi invasion is a straightforward extension of our policy in Afghanistan. The relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq is very different than the relationship between Al Qaeda and Afghanistan--it is more like the relationship Al Qaeda maintained (until quite recently) with Pakistan.

Absolutly not. The Policy of premeption is one in the same. Iraq poses a viable and ongoing threat. The problem (eg. Fanatical Terrorism) is not something we can root out without a true paradigm shift in the educational and governmental systems that are currently present in the Middle East. Afghanistan was a short-term solution, we destroyed the operational ability of Al-Qaeda. Iraq is the long-term solution, for Iraq will become a bastion of Democracy in the region - the beginning of as trend. Within 50 years, the entire Middle East will be waching MTV.

This is very much one in the same. If you're not able to recognize this, then I can't help you with your ignorance.

 

[Vince]

For them, every dead Iraqi will be a recruiting poster, every American soldier murdered during the occupation a moral victory. If Islamic radicals are killing us in Kuwait, a country we rescued ten years ago, what will they do to us in a country where we have killed directly tens of thousands (not to mention what the sanctions have done)?

You've got to be kidding me.


A Recruiting poster showing what? The Iraqi populace cheering us on? The Iraqi's having and excersizing their inherient right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness? A free Iraq becomming the center of the economic and political middle east of the future?

Lets look at Kuwait, outside of a shall cluster of fanatics (most of which are external), the country loves us. I was just watching CNN interview Kuwaitiis in a market and they were so happy the US was there, they felt safe and secure. Where do you get this?

There are small groups of fanatics everywhere, in every country. In the US we have a radical right and left (eg. OKC bombing, Unabomber), as does any country in the Western world. So very fallacious, don't you think these things threw?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You have been duped into thinking that the Iraqi invasion is a straightforward extension of our policy in Afghanistan.

No, I have not been duped of anything of the sort. I have just heard all the same threats as before. The Taliban / AlQaedq will just get more fueld for their fire if we dare to even set foot in Afghanistan...

I absolutely agree that the risks are greater in Iraq. That's precisely because the danger of his regime is greater.

The relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq is very different than the relationship between Al Qaeda and Afghanistan

What are you talking about...there is no relationship between Iraq an AlQaeda, right?

 

[kyleb]

however we should work to resolve the injustices that lead to the terrorism with respect to the equality of man.

This comes with the naive assumption that all the parties in question are willing to resolve injustices, or even define injustices the as the same thing.

i suppose this goes to prove the old addage of "one mans trash is another mans treasure."

"Resolving Injustices" sounds great. The problem comes, as it always does, when the parties invloved have different ideas of what the resolution should be....or even what in fact the injustices are.

so resolving injustice is complicated by the nature of injustice. i agree completely, but i don't see it as an argument for to initiative violent action. if i did i would surely be in jail right now for beating the crap out of a countless number of people. i don't see why i should belive in logic like that; or are you saying it is acceptable behavior when you belive that you can avoid the conscience of such action?

and as far as i am consired there are only 2 good options:

1) We convince Sadam to change. We convince him that he is causing injustice, and the he needs to change.
2) WE change. We are convinced that Sadam is not a regime of injustice.

I presume your answer is again simply "resolve the injustices with respect to the equality of man?".

well i would not call it simple, but yes that is the root of my answer.

Go deeper. HOW do you resolve injustices if "the man" doesn't acknowledge injustices are going on?

sometimes you have to do deeper into the good within yourself.

 

[Silent_One]

Vince wrote:

Whats the Risk/Reward ratio when the terrorist training camps he has outside of Baghdad (where they have a 727 to teach hijacking) reaches critical mass and WMD proliferation blossoms?

photos of plane-
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photo_2.guest.html