How to win the War on Terrorism

[cia]

I agree. But they also must be made aware, especially in that part of the world, the US is not a paper tiger and will do whatever is necessary to achieve it's ends.
After the Beirut bombing, nothing.
Embassy bombings, nothing.
USS Cole, nothing.
WTC, full attack with takedown of country's government.
THAT got their attention irrespective of rhetoric.

[notyoueither]

You are right, about the latest response.

I sometimes wonder why Britain put up with bombs going off in London while the perpetrators were 'just over the border' in the Republic of Ireland. I'd have to think the government did not feel they could get away with an appropriate response to it's citizens being murdered and the murderers being sheltered in another country.

I sincerely hope that attitudes towards terrorism are different now.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by cia
Everyone here admits terrorism against the US is due to their support of corrupt regimes in the ME. So why attack the US when the Saudi government is your enemy? No one answers this fundamental question.

They hate the Saudi govt and other ME governments precisely because these governments are allied to the USA, and not the other way around.

Don't you see, the hate stems not from their hatred of the Saudi government, and from there, to USA, but in the opposite direction.

What was the view for the man in the street of the Shah's Iran?

What is the view for the man in the street of Saudi Arabia?

I'm pretty sure I know what the view is for the man in the street of Bagdad.

What then, do you think, is his view?

Do you really think that people in countries like Iraq and North Korea despise their own leaders and regard the USA as a sort of beacon?
Or perhaps, it is the other way around?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Or perhaps, it is the other way around?

That is precisely what I implied. They hate the West, and the US in particular for the abuses they have felt.

But, when you say that they hate their own regimes because they are allies (or enemies) of the US you generalize too much.

They hate for the misery inflicted on them. They would not care a bit if their governors were friendly with the West and the US, were they not oppressed.

[cia]

The difficulty I have with that evaluation is that the underclass majority of Saudi's hate the royals due to their greed and backng of a non-Islamic state. Backing the US in any way, or the US backing them is therefore unacceptable as that is what people think has let them remain in power.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
But, when you say that they hate their own regimes because they are allies (or enemies) of the US you generalize too much.

They hate for the misery inflicted on them. They would not care a bit if their governors were friendly with the West and the US, were they not oppressed.

I agree with you on that. But my point is that the people who do hate their own regimes do so mainly because of their governments' support of the US.

[notyoueither]

They hate because they are starving, or their brother is in prison for political views, or... And they think (or have been convinced) the US is causing it all (sometimes they are right).

Think about it. What would make you fanatical? Injustice in your own village or your benevolent ruler supporting the US?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by ranskaldan Actually, they are US allies, which is almost equivalent to US puppets.

Nonsense.
An idiotic statement by you.

This "they can rot" attitude, coupled with invasion and sanction, is pretty much why America is so universally loathed.

That "universe" is pretty small, mainly a handful of leftist Europeans and the Islamic world.

It's been less than a year. There's more than a year separating the Cole Attack and Sept 11 anyway.
Besides, Al Qaeda (which is how it's spelled) may be in shards, but as they say, the spirit lives on and grows stronger.

Sure, and pigs fly.
As for spelling, it's bad form to correct spelling, as most mistakes are just typos, it makes you look pedantic.

Support for Israel for instance is a fair amount of meddling.

Another nonsense argument.

Sanctions on Cuba, on Iraq, and on other countries the US doesn't like.

Still doesn't amount to 'meddling".

Its strange habit of training and supporting dictators and terrorists who then turns against it. (Saddam comes to mind)

He shouldn't, seeing how he was a Soviet creature, never a US one.

All the political intrigue, amphibious assaults, support for one group or another, etc etc in South America.

What are you talking about?
This is exactly what I mean, unfounded rumor.

The fiasco of Vietnam.

Almost all realize that was a cold war issue between the US and USSR.

And don't get me started on the places that America should have gotten involved but didn't. Like Kyoto.
They don't call America the International Policeman for nothing. I call it the International Rogue.

Based on nothing but inuendo and half truths.
I knew you wer anti-US, it was just a matter of getting you to admit it outright, instead of playing the moderate that you attempted.

So the USA is following Europe in the footsteps of colonialism? How nice.

Has yet to happen, you don't see us putting our boot on some poor bastards neck and making them grovel, that's a European trait.

Apparently you have no idea what Germany was like in the 1920's.
It was like the ME today: poor, angry, and extremist. The Allies were contributors, and they reaped what they sowed.

I hold a masters in european history, specifically early to mid 20th century, 1900-1945.
I promise you I know FAR more about it then you.

I share your joy.

I'm sure.

Straw man argument.

Nothing worse then someone who uses buzz words as a rebuttal attempt.
You have no argument, just admit it.

I'm not against force if there's no other way that could possibly work.

Any other way ended on 9/11/2001

Unfortunately, in the vast wide world, there are many ways that are slower and more subtle but will work a lot better.

In your opinion.

Unfortunately, that may work for interpersonal relationships, but certainly not for international relationships.

It's far more effective then you realize.
Why do you think the Soviets never had many terror problems?
Even in the Afghan war, they didn't have terror.
The reason was simple, the Soviets made it known they would hunt down and kill the families of terrorists.

If a mosquito bites you, you probably should find where they breed, not attempt to swat every single one of the several thousand that approaches.

Nothing like inappropreate homolies.

If you think it's stopped like that, then you're more naive than I thought.

Actually, navieve doesn't begin to describe you, but I'm sure your convinced your quite urbain and witty.

Yes, and America, so far, has been happily encouraging everyone to fight to the end.
A very wise path.

A very EFFECTIVE path.

Mmm, and now you're out meddling.

Again with the baseless acustaion.

Mmmm, and you're sitting aside and allowing it to happen, right?

Yes, contrary to the nonsense you've been attempting to spread, the US isn't out trying to control every government propaganda service.

Don't be so confident. Overconfidence led to Sept 11.

Laxity caused 9/11, that was indeed a wake up.
They had their shot, the only one they are getting.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your living in a dream world Boris, saying the same nonsense over and over again.

What? Your world is the dream one, far more Polyannaish than mine. What makes more sense, rationally:

"The U.S. has made mistakes in foreign policy and the consequences have come back to bite us on the butt."

or

"The U.S. has never made a foreign policy mistake, and there are no consequences for our actions abroad."

Wake up and stop being a naive, knee-jerk U.S. apologist. If you would actually THINK about U.S. policy you'd realize that being critical of it isn't tantamount to being anti-American.

I think this is a good summary fo such wretched policy, particularly with arms sales:

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol1/arms_body.html

"In fact, the last 5 times the U.S. has sent significant numbers of troops into areas of conflict--in Panama, Iraq-Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia--U.S. forces faced adversaries that had previously received U.S. weapons, military technology, and/or training."



I think you should read this source to see just how manipulative and stupid U.S. policy was towards Iraq and Iran during their war:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Oh, and U.S. equipment to Iraq:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1990/n90/n90ackland.html

"Right now the world is being forced to confront the explosive absurdity of treating arms sales as "just business." Iraqi missiles aimed at U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia are guided by sophisticated electronics equipment sold to Iraq by U.S. companies with approval of the U.S. government"

As Bill Hartung, director of the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center said in a 1995 World Policy Institute report on U.S. arms sales, "The last four times the United States has sent troops into conflict in substantial numbers -- in Panama, Iraq, Somalia and Haiti -- they faced forces on the other side that had received U.S. weapons, training or military technology in the period leading up to the outbreak of hostilities."

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/USapproved.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/studycommerce.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/givebomb.htm

The soviets may have been the major supplier to Iraq (though they ceased shipping much arms after Hussein made clear his anti-Soviet feelings), but the U.S. certainly gave sold them a lot of equipment.

We didn't "prop up" the shah, he was put in power by Britain, instead of a fanatic pro-nazi in the 1940s.

Wrong. The CIA was directly involved in manufacturing the coup d'etat that put the shah in power in 1953. The British were involved as well, but it was the CIA which did a lot of the dirty work:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

And Iran has been so much better under Islamic hardliners, hasn't it?

They had their freedoms removed one by one by the regime that replaced the "evil" shah.

This is exactly the kind of stupidity I constantly see in these threads, blame for the "evil" US, and zero proof to back it up.

In fact Boris, take a look at this:

http://www.iraniancivilrights.com/main2.htm

This is what happened after the "US puppet" shah was forced out.
If your against US support of the Shah, then your for murder of homosexuals, Zero rights for women, no rights in labor, the list of human rights abuses is endless.

Are you being dense on purpose? My entire point was that by orchestrating the coup and putting the shah in place, we precipitated the coming of a WORSE regime. I thought you had better cognative skills than this. You don't argue what people say, you just make up what you think people are saying and argue that. What a crock.

And people like YOU favor pandering to these morons.

To paraphrase one of your posts to someone else, using a meaningless smiley ( ) in place of a real argument is pretty lame. So is this entire sentence, because no one has adovacted pandering to anybody. If you're so dumb as to think reassessing U.S. policy in the ME so that we're not f*cking up things like we did in Iran, Iraq and pre-Taliban Afghanistan constitutes pandering, that's your mistake. This about doing what is in the best interests of the U.S, which isn't sitting back and ignoring the issues Muslim nations have with boneheaded U.S. policies of the past.

And here's a few for you:

[Chris 62]

I just wrote a long rebuttal, but poly ate it!

Basically Boris, all of your sites arte heresay, not proof, they all are speculation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder how ANYONE can say we didn't support the Shah in Iran or Saddam. It's delusion to believe otherwise. After all Kissenger told Carter to protect the Shah (which is, btw, why the hostages were kept in the US embassy) because of 'all he's done for us'.

Chris, you are spouting revisionist history.

[Lemmy]

You don't argue what people say, you just make up what you think people are saying and argue that.

if one would argue, wouldn't that person use arguments?
funny, because i really don't consider these arguments:

Nonsense.
An idiotic statement by you.
....
Sure, and pigs fly.
As for spelling, it's bad form to correct spelling, as most mistakes are just typos, it makes you look pedantic.
...
Still doesn't amount to 'meddling".
...
What are you talking about?
This is exactly what I mean, unfounded rumor.
...
Nothing worse then someone who uses buzz words as a rebuttal attempt.
You have no argument, just admit it.
...
I just wrote a long rebuttal, but poly ate it!

Basically Boris, all of your sites arte heresay, not proof, they all are speculation.

and my dog ate my homework

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Nonsense.
An idiotic statement by you.

Alright. what about "minions"?

That "universe" is pretty small, mainly a handful of leftist Europeans and the Islamic world.

You just have no idea how much America's policies are loathed all over the planet, don't you?

Sure, and pigs fly.
As for spelling, it's bad form to correct spelling, as most mistakes are just typos, it makes you look pedantic.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are regrouping, relocating and reorganizing as we speak.
As for spelling, we'll assume that "El Quieda" is a typo for "Al Qaeda". Maybe you should try to get yourself an English-language keyboard?

Another nonsense argument.

It's nice if you could bother to explain.

Still doesn't amount to 'meddling".He shouldn't, seeing how he was a Soviet creature, never a US one.What are you talking about?

Please read the above arguments of a fine American, Boris Godunov, who puts rednecks to shame.
Oh yea, America sold weapons to Iran too. Isn't it nice, supporting both sides in a war?

This is exactly what I mean, unfounded rumor.

America has been treating Latin America as its own personal backyard even before it became a world power.

Almost all realize that was a cold war issue between the US and USSR.Based on nothing but inuendo and half truths.

Perhaps if you could learn to recognize the Vietnam War as an event where millions of young Americans and Vietnamese gave their lives in vain, instead of an "issue", we won't be having most of this debate.

I knew you wer anti-US, it was just a matter of getting you to admit it outright, instead of playing the moderate that you attempted.

I'm not anti-US. Some American posters here hold sane and logical views. Unfortunately, they're the minority.

Has yet to happen, you don't see us putting our boot on some poor bastards neck and making them grovel, that's a European trait.

You're doing it to Iraq and Cuba. Unfortunately they haven't groveled yet.

I hold a masters in european history, specifically early to mid 20th century, 1900-1945.
I promise you I know FAR more about it then you.

Nice. Explain Versailles all to me then and tell me how it prevented Hitler's rise.

I'm sure.

Glad we agree.

Nothing worse then someone who uses buzz words as a rebuttal attempt.
You have no argument, just admit it.

Maybe I should instead use insults, like the way you do?

Any other way ended on 9/11/2001/

America's way ended on 9/11/2001.

In your opinion.

Yes, that's right.

It's far more effective then you realize.
Why do you think the Soviets never had many terror problems?
Even in the Afghan war, they didn't have terror.
The reason was simple, the Soviets made it known they would hunt down and kill the families of terrorists.

May I kindly remind you that the Soviet Union lost its influence in Eastern Europe, lost its war in Afghanistan, and subsequently disintegrated?

Nothing like inappropreate homolies.

Again, you might want to try explaining your point.

[ranskaldan]

Actually, navieve doesn't begin to describe you, but I'm sure your convinced your quite urbain and witty.

And I'm sure you're convinced that you have some sort of moral superiority. Or maybe even you aren't that extreme to think hat.

A very EFFECTIVE path.

lol, we'll see about that.
Oppression begets revenge. Please see the first line of my signature.

Again with the baseless acustaion.

Actually, I can just quote some of the things you say to be my evidence.

Yes, contrary to the nonsense you've been attempting to spread, the US isn't out trying to control every government propaganda service.

Right..... they're trying to let each government tell what they like to their people. Right right....

Laxity caused 9/11, that was indeed a wake up.
They had their shot, the only one they are getting.

Many more are coming, my friend.

Alright, since this has devolved into a fest of insults, let me try to regroup my points:

The fact is, millions of people around the world are out for American blood, and a few billion more (myself included) simply don't like what America has done so far. If the Americans want to solve the terrorism problem they should at least try to understand the situation, and not lash out with random fury.

About the war in Afghanistan, this campaign is useful in stopping the short term threat of terrorism, but it doesn't combat terrorism in the long term. In a couple of years, Al Qaeda (or whatever replaces it) will be as strong as it was on Sept 10, 2001. Just look at Palestinian suicide bombings to see how quickly hatred breeds. Terrorism isn't like Nazi Germany: it isn't a physical entity consisting of factories and leaders: it is a mental force that permeates poor, oppressed society.

The war on terrorism is therefore not just a war against bin Laden, against munition dumps, against bomb factories. It is vastly more than that. It is a war against hatred and oppression. America is a participant in the hatred and oppression, and if the Americans want to solve their problem and our problem once and for all, they must realize this, and change their ways.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by cia
Everyone here admits terrorism against the US is due to their support of corrupt regimes in the ME. So why attack the US when the Saudi government is your enemy? No one answers this fundamental question.

Because bin Laden is smart, much smarter than a lot of posters who are defending US foreign policy.

The corrupt regimes in the Middle East is just a symptom, the root cause being US foreign policy. It doesn't matter if these regimes are removed. Unless the cause is removed, they will reappear.

Same with terrorism. It is just a symptom.

I have pointed this ages ago.

Consider this situation. There is a large pot of water boiling over a fire. How do you stop it from boiling? It doesn't work very well if you just add cold water. The only solution to it is to put out the fire.