How to win the War on Terrorism

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran,
HUH!
Ever hear of the Iran/Iraq war?

Yep... Iraq did very well during that time.

Siro: I consider colonization by European powers to be not far from what the Nazis did.

[Sirotnikov]

Imran -colonization in the 1400 - 1900 period maybe.

but what Brittain did to Jewish guerillas in 1945 was hardly nazi.

[Sirotnikov]

Che - in your scenario what is wrong with invading germany, taking down the nazis while young, and then approaching to fix what ever is broken because of versailles?

[Saint Marcus]

Siro, why haven't you commented on this:

Hmmm, I may be nitpicking in your logic, but can't you just pospone invasion? I mean, just give in and see what happends. If the US is still targetted, you can always give the call and bomb Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/bananaville then. What's the rush? Why should the US be so trigger happy? Yes I know it's the American way to shoot first and ask questions later, but may it not be possible to ask those questions first, and then shoot if needed? Sounds a lot better to me.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The heart of this matter is simple, some people want the US to do what they say, and if the US refuses, they will attempt to kill as many as they can.

To even attempt to talk to such a bunch is pointless.

It's not just "some" people. An enormous number of people are grossly dissatisfied with American foreign policies, and this is where support for terrorism (or at least indirect support) comes from. If you want to allow such a trend to continue, I say it's a terrible strategic decision.

Next, the matter of US "adressing" the desires of the Islamic man in the street.
Ask me if I give a rat's ass what his desires are...

, the fact is the USA is blamed for any problem they may have.

Because the USA is indeed responsible for some of the problems that they have.

For example, our friend Saddam right above me (Love that avatar marky, he looks so happy!) totally disreguarded the cease-fire of 91, and still flaunts it, because sanctions don't bother him personally, but Imran's "man on the arab street" is told the USA is starving babies in Iraq.

Because the USA indeed is starving babies in Iraq.
I know that Saddam doesn't care about his people either, but America certainly isn't helping with those sanctions. With the sanctions in place, America is in essence an accomplice to Saddam, and which accomplice would Arabs want to blame? An Arab leader? Or rich foreigners? After all, they all have a part in this.

The guy that causes the problem draws politcal benifit from it, as amazing as that is.
I would care if they brought their complaints to us in a civilized fashion, point by point, but as long as they think murdering us is a good theme for a dance party, no dice.

If they did that, the Americans would listen politely, nod, and move on to more important matters, like impeaching Clinton for his Monica Lewinsky affair, in typical American fashion. US foreign policies in the Middle East haven't changed no matter how many ways Arabs have attempted to voice their concerns.
Which is exactly why they're resorting to other means.

Let's talk about Israel, what right does a man in Saudi Arabia have to tell the US whom it wants to ally with? Who it gives weapons and aid to?

He doesn't. But America has the responsibility to choose its allies wisely, especially if it wants to play fair and "fight for freedom" as it claims it does.

Sorry, as a nation that the US's choice, if Americans don't want that they can tell the government to stop it, but I have yet to see anybody beating down the doors of Congress to do this.

America can go ahead and make whatever foreign policies decisions that it wants, pretending that the rest of the world would behave like sheep. I don't think the results would be pretty.

To say we have to pander to some clown walking the streets of Theran is insane.

I thought America was supposed to represent freedom and justice? Or is it true that American citizens are worth more than non-Americans?

I do agree with some things, like total withdrawl and severing ties with Saudi Arabia, in fact, I would be in favor of severing ties WITH ALL nations that don't give a fig about women's rights, and treat freedom like a joke.
Unfortunatly that would mean almost the entire Muslim world, but that's just my opinion (not all of it, and I'm not talking about religion, they can believe what they want, but since they like to treat women like property, I can do without them. And spare me any assinine charge of racism, I don't think I'm better then them as person, or as a people, or through religion, I just find this medieval attitude sickening).

So severing ties would actually help those women get rights. Right right.

On Palestine, I think it was Moomie who hit the nail on the head, if terror ended the state they want would be built overnight, but they will never get by blowing up children and old ladies and calling those bombers martyrs and heros.
I think they sure as hell should have a country, damn over-do, but they will never get it this way.

See above point on Saudi Arabia.

One last thing, I realize this seems rather harsh to some, but I have a real F*ck you attitude with people who try to kill me and mine, they can kiss my ass before I'll care what they think, simply because they tried to kill me.
I'm funny that way.

Don't you want to find out why they want to kill you, so that there won't be any more from where they came from?
If you really don't want to know, I say that's bad tactics.

Oh, and Imran, if we go by your "The US deserves it" attitude, the USA would be withen it's rights to nuke Mecca, since their lose change was behind terror against the US.
After all, they brought it on themselves.

Nuke Mecca indeed!
To quote something from a while back, "if America continues acting in the way it does, it'll soon lose all its allies."
How true.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Because the USA indeed is starving babies in Iraq.

Allow me to at least try to introduce a few facts into the debate on this particular point.

But Sulaymaniyah, a city in northern Iraq with approximately 500,000 inhabitants, tells a different story. Indeed, across a crescent-shaped slice of northern Iraq, the picture is the same: The shops are stocked, and the people are eating. Northern Iraq lives under exactly the same international sanctions as the rest of the country. The difference here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.

[ranskaldan]

That is, in fact, a poor argument.

Saddam is starving Iraq's people, we all know that as a fact.
The issues in question here, however, is America's involvement in all this.
Are those sanctions helping to feed the people of Iraq?
The answer is, obviously, no.
Are these sanctions helping to topple Saddam and give the Iraqi people better political and economic conditions?
The answer is a most resounding no.
Lastly: Are these sanctions helping to deepen the Iraqi economic problems and the suffering of Iraqis?
The answer is, obviously, yes.
It doesn't matter whether the Kurds are living better because of their own efforts or not, or maybe Saddam is a lot more responsible for the starvation than the USA. The fact remains that, being the most powerful nation of the world, the USA imposes sanctions that don't help the Iraqi people in any conceivable way, and could only serve to deepen their suffering. Which is just one example of many illogical and meaningless American foreign policies.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by cia
Here's the deal.
First, why don't all these hard-working terrorists blow up and assasinate the Saudi royal family if they don't like them? A plane or two anyone?

Coz they like the Saudis a lot more than they like Americans, that's for sure.
I wish for once Americans would sit down and wonder why this is so, aside from the inane argument of "they'll all CRAZY!!!"

Second, I say we withdraw our support from the Saudi Royals and let them get whacked. The next terrorist attack on the US will be met with a full-scale invasion and war on Saudi Arabia, followed by occupation. Oil problem solved.

Very nice. In typical imperialistic fashion.
America fighting, once again, for Freedom and Justice!

Third, the damn Iraqi people are starving for two reasons, Hussein wants to spend the money on weapons and their suffering is a political tool of control. Please point to a time when he fed them and they were prosperous before rebutting this with some flippant comment.

No one's questioning whether Saddam's starving his people or not. The question is, is the USA helping Saddam starve his people? The answer is yes.

Fourth, the poor people of the Middle East have now been completely indoctrinated into what to think. Appealing to their higher sensibilities will not work.

In the same way that the Americans have been indoctrinated, no doubt. Appealing to the higher sensibilities of America doesn't really seem to work either, since their policies consist entirely of "Where's the money?" and "we've gotta get back at 'em!"
There isn't much difference between typical American arguments against the Middle East and typical Middle Eastern arguments against the US.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That is, in fact, a poor argument.

How so? You're the one that stated that the US and UN were starving the Iraqi people. I presented evidence that this was not so and also called into question Saddam's willingness to provide for his own people.

Saddam is starving Iraq's people, we all know that as a fact.

That isn't what you said. You stated that the US was starving the Iraqi people as if it were fact. Now you wish to change the terms of the debate.

Are those sanctions helping to feed the people of Iraq?
The answer is, obviously, no.

That's what the oil for food program is meant to accomplish. Strangely, it only seems to accomplish that goal in areas where the Iraqi government in Bagdad isn't in control.

The fact remains that, being the most powerful nation of the world, the USA imposes sanctions that don't help the Iraqi people in any conceivable way, and could only serve to deepen their suffering.

The sanctions could quite possibly had been lifted years ago had Iraq obeyed the peace agreement that they signed after the end of the Gulf War.

[Az]

Ranskaldan , that article , if true (and I believe it to be so , I kinda trust the journal , for some reason ) , is an argument winner.

DD

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Because the USA indeed is starving babies in Iraq.

Allow me to at least try to introduce a few facts into the debate on this particular point.

What that article leaves out is, the UN is the party administrering the program, not Hussein, not the Kurds.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Che - in your scenario what is wrong with invading germany, taking down the nazis while young, and then approaching to fix what ever is broken because of versailles?

The problem is that's only a temproary fix. All you do is increase support for the Nazis so that when you finally leave, they come to power. If you fixed the problems, the Nazis wouldn't go away, but their base of support would vanish, and they'd wither to just another nutjub political cult with no influence in German life.

Terrorism is a hydra. Everytime you go after a head, two more spring into place. You cannot kill it without killing the body. Yes, it's gonna try and bite you will you do that, but no one said don't protect yourself.

Go after the disease, not the symptoms!

[moomin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Taking this statement as an example. Palestinians know what Israel's demands and concerns are, from the left to right. When extremist Palestinians committ acts of terror, then those elemnts in Israelis society gain more support from mainstream Israelis. Thus, it is in the interest of Palestinians to respond to Israel's legitimate concerns. This would go a long way to ameliorating the support for Sharon and other Israeli extremists.

We can all see that this is logical. However, when we turn it around and say that "our" side should stop engaging in the activity that drives the Arab/Moslem mainstream towards exremists, we are accussed of giving in to terror. Rather I like to think we are pulling the rug out from underneath the terrorists. If the mainstream sees we take their concerns seriously, then they will not be drawn to extremists to have their concerns addressed.

You conviniently ignore that there is a difference between stopping to activly seek out helpless civilian targets in order to kill as many as possible - the Pal tactic - and to prevent a dictator with a proven track record of mass murder form acquiring weapons of mass destruction. How would it harm the Pals if they gave up on terror? Not at all. How would it harm the US if it gave up on the Iraqi blockade? NY would go BOOM.

I believe you wouldn't support nuking Mekka during Ramadan claiming the Arabs brought that on themsleves by not listening to our grievances - and that they deserved it because of that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How would it harm the US if it gave up on the Iraqi blockade? NY would go BOOM.

HAHAHA... ah, paranoia.

[chequita guevara]

The depths to which people go to avoid understanding.

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
You conviniently ignore that there is a difference between stopping to activly seek out helpless civilian targets in order to kill as many as possible - the Pal tactic - and to prevent a dictator with a proven track record of mass murder form acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

They is a great difference between the two, yes. Palestinian terror has killed maybe as many as 5,000 Israelis in 50 years. The US blockade of Iraq has killed almost a million in 12 years. Not the difference of which you were thinking, however.

How would it harm the Pals if they gave up on terror? Not at all. How would it harm the US if it gave up on the Iraqi blockade? NY would go BOOM.

Right, how's he gonna hit NYC? Oh yeah, give his weapons to Islamic extremists who hate him and are trying to topple him.

I believe you wouldn't support nuking Mekka during Ramadan claiming the Arabs brought that on themsleves by not listening to our grievances - and that they deserved it because of that.

Nuking Mecca during Ramadan would be an act of extremism which few of us support. And yet, would that mean that the concerns that most of us have about Islam are unfounded? According to you, I guess that would.

According to me, the fact that a few violent nuts share some of my goals does not make my goals less valid. Adolph Hitler believed the sky was blue. That doesn't mean it's not blue.