How to win the War on Terrorism

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Can we say "going to the opposite extreme?"

Give me a break, that's not what Rall is saying at all. Do you rightist folks read? Or was learning to read things too much of a "liberal" education for you?

First dear Boris, you shouldn't label, I'm as far from "rightest" as you can get and not be Left, I find Bush a clown, yet I also find liberals for the most part to be hopelessly diluted, so I'll thank you to keep your labels to yourself.

SUPER

Rall isn't talking about appeasing terrorists, not even remotely. He's talking about addressing the legitimate concerns of MAINSTREAM Muslim nations in order to steal the thunder of extremist terrorist groups.

Seems your reading comprehention is the one in doubt dear boy.

What part of "Parse Islamist demands into the acceptable and unreasonable" is so hard to understand? The unreasonable is represented by OBL and company. The reasonable is mainstream Muslim concern.

Oh, it';s "reasonable" to cut aid to Israel because the "mainstream" doesn't like it?
Are you kidding?

You guys jump to irrational conclusions faster than Lincoln does whenever Ashcroft speaks...

You should read more carefully and label less often.

The guy says do what terrorists want to avoid terror.

[Boris Godunov]

From the article:

"It may or may not be wise to give into these demands, but dismissing them as the rants of cave-dwelling freedom-haters is lunacy. "

"Ignoring their concerns entirely-not to be confused with giving in to them-is sure to infuriate them further, which will merely increase the frequency and scale of future attacks."

"Addressing Islamist demands-not caving in outright-would eliminate most of the broad-based Muslim support for jihadi groups."

They're doing a sale at Pearl Vision, $99 for eyeglasses.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
yet I also find liberals for the most part to be hopelessly diluted

I haven't drunk that much water lately...

[Chris 62]

He added platitudes, but if you look, his "How to win" is to do what they want.

You best run to pearl quickly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rall is spot on! Finally someone in the mainstream media that gets it! I'm shocked and suprised. Rall for SecState!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Oh, it';s "reasonable" to cut aid to Israel because the "mainstream" doesn't like it?
Are you kidding?

Absolutely, but we should do it not out of that reason, but because it's just not necessary for Israeli security. They easily have the best military in the region, and its shown they can deal with the internal problems without our help. So long as we guarantee military support if they are attacked, I think we should damn well stop pumping our money into them.



We can spend that money on cancer research!

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Boris Godunov]

Let's go to that section of the article:

Withdrawing our support for the corrupt Saudi dictatorship might lead to a less pro-American regime, for example, but it would begin to inoculate us from the mostly-justified criticism that we pro-democracy Americans promote oppression wherever it suits our business interests.

I don't have a problem with this. Just because terrorists want us out of S.A. doesn't make it a bad idea to do so. We shouldn't knee-jerk do the opposite of what the terrorists want, should we? That would be dumb foreign policy. I've said it all along that American best interest is to get out of S.A. and stop the reliance on ME oil.

Stopping or reducing our $3 billion per annum flow of arms to Israel would allow us to truly act as an impartial negotiator in the Middle East, not to mention put a dent in the deficit. We could still offer to defend Israel in the event of an invasion, and while that stance wouldn't sate Osama et al., it wouldn't spark much anger among the great Arab mainstream.

Handled above. But notice he specifically points out its arms money. Why should we continue arms money to a nation that has nuclear capabilities? We can still give aid. And he says "or reduce," so it's not like he's flat against any aid for Israel.

I think it's farsightedness you need corrected, not near, because you're reading things into it that aren't there...

[Chris 62]

I wasn't aware we sent three billion in arms to Israel.

That's the total is US aid, proving straight away a little "agenda" of your author.

As for cutting foreign aid, I'm all for it, but it should be COMPLETE, with no exceptions.

Never supported the Saudis either, but you can continue to be cutsie, your article is basiccally "give em what they want and they will leave".

Simplistic and laughable.

Also not going to happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's much smarter than lets smack them and make them madder at us so they can kill us again.

Frankly, if there are any other terracts in the US by Arabs, we deserve them. We haven't changed anything and just became the same bullies we were before.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Chris 62
First dear Boris, you shouldn't label, I'm as far from "rightest" as you can get and not be Left, I find Bush a clown, yet I also find liberals for the most part to be hopelessly diluted, so I'll thank you to keep your labels to yourself.

Just goes to show that everyone thinks their own position is the middle of the road.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I wasn't aware we sent three billion in arms to Israel.

That's the total is US aid, proving straight away a little "agenda" of your author.

Or that he is mistaken in the amount of aid that goes just for arms, perhaps?

As for cutting foreign aid, I'm all for it, but it should be COMPLETE, with no exceptions.

Well, fine. But I'd sooner cut military aid first, then domestic aid.

Never supported the Saudis either, but you can continue to be cutsie, your article is basiccally "give em what they want and they will leave".

Simplistic and laughable.

No, that's your simplistic and erroneous reading of what he is saying. He is saying we can't just categorically ignore the greivances of Muslims, because doing that plays right into the hands of the lunatic terrorists. We can address their concerns without caving into the terrorists, you know.

It is far less laughable a notion than the one that we will somehow magically be safer and end terrorism by closing our ears to any greivances and futiley trying to wipe out every terrorist we can find. As history has shown, that does not work. We will simply continue to breed animosity and misunderstandings.

We're already on our way to a complete disaster for Afghanistan, much like what happened to them just before the Taliban came to power.

[DinoDoc]

Boris/Imran: Blowing yourself up in order to kill as many people as possible, along with supporting such acts, only serves to convince your target that you are clinically deranged and therefore not a suitable negotiation partner.

[Ramo]

Excellent article.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Echinda


Just goes to show that everyone thinks their own position is the middle of the road.

Not me, I'm well aware that my position on some issues is quite leftist. But I think that, by Western standards, "centrist Americans" are "rightists."