WOT...a discussion.

[blackfox]

Since the "War on Terror" seems to be such a huge component of the current political landscape (at least here in the US)...I thought I might start a thread to clarify what it means and entails to us as individuals, as well as what it might take to "win" such a war.

So I ask the following questions:

1) What is the "War on Terror"?
2) Who is the enemy?
3) How should it be fought?
4) Is the US fighting it effectively? Are other parts of the world? If yes, how and why? If no, the same...
5) Is a victory possible for any side? Are there sides?

There are of course many other important questions to be asked, but I thought this would be a start and perhaps illuminating to people to understand something that is bound to be a facet of of lives for the forseeable future...

Have at it, and keep it civil...

[mactastic]

Excellent topic BF, I promise I will come back to it with more later but time is short for me at the moment. I can only leave you with a quote from Jon Stewart's commencement address earlier this year. (I'll post a link too, it is an excellent read).

"We declared war on terror. After we defeat it, I’m sure we’ll take on that bastard ennui." -Jon Stewart
:D

Oops, We Broke the World (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/147/story_14743_1.html)

[Bobcat37]

1) As mactastic (well really it was Jon Stewart) pointed out, "War on Terror" is kind of a stupid name. Terror is an emotion, a concept, you can't really fight that. It should be more like the "War on Terrorists". What is this "War on Terrorists"? Uhhhh that seems pretty dang self-explanitory. It is a war... on... terrorists. It is a battle or a fight to rid the world of people who terrorize innocent citizens.

2) Who is the enemy? Well terrorists are. And despite how un-PC it might sound, most of the terrorists these days we have to worry about are the radical extremist Muslims. We have to face the fact that it wasn't Buddhists or Hindus or Christians or Jews or Athiests who flew planes into the twin towers almost 3 years ago. Even the 9/11 commission report identifed the enemy as "Islamist terrorism". (*see further down for a detailed description of the enemy)

3) By bringing the fight to them. Terrorists should not be dealt with by means of law enforcement and policing, that has been done in the past and didn't work to well. We have to simply kill them. Again, might be un-PC, but that is my view on things. Some people argue that killing them just breeds more, but I subscribe to a different viewpoint. Really what else can you do? Negotiation would be a joke IMO.

4) We're doing ok... but it's far from over. Ridding the world of Saddam and giving Iraq it's freedom will hopefully go a long way to help the Middle East in the long run. But where is Osama? Everyone agrees we need to catch him. Then there are nations that are a threat to us still like Syria or Iran or North Korea (that famous "axis of evil"). And what about nations that are self-destructing from internal terrorism like Sudan? I think we have a responsibility to help them out. We definitely need the help of the rest of the world in this fight, we can't accomplish it alone unless we plan to invade far too many countries, lol.

5) Is victory possible? That's a tough question, it would all depend on your definition of victory. If victory means the elimination of all terrorists from the entire planet, then no, that is impossible. But I think it IS possible to make smaller victories in the war like capturing Saddam or (hopefully someday) caputuring Bin Laden. I would consider those victories, but I think as you said blackfox, this "war" will continue for a long long time.

There are my short but sweet answers.

*As for the extra info I had, here is our enemy:

"listen to the sentiments of Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, commander of the Al Quds Brigade, which took "credit" for the recent May 29 massacre in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.

Translated from Arabic by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the original interview was posted on Sawt Al-Jihad, a Web site with ties to al-Qaida.

"We tied the infidel [a Briton] by one leg [behind the car] . . . Everyone watched the infidel being dragged . . . The infidel's clothing was torn to shreds, and he was naked in the street. The street was full of people, as this was during work hours, and everyone watched the infidel being dragged, praise and gratitude be to Allah . . . We entered one of the companies' [offices], and found there an American infidel who looked like a director of one of the companies. I went into is office and called him. When he turned to me, I shot him in the head, and his head exploded. We entered another office and found one infidel from South Africa, and our brother Hussein cut his throat. We asked Allah to accept [these acts of devotion] from us, and from him.

"We went from the company [offices] and found our brother, Nimr the hero, standing at the entrance to the company and guarding us, drinking a little water as though he were on a hike. [He acted this way] because of his great courage - may Allah have mercy on him . . .

"At the same time, we found a Swedish infidel. Brother Nimr cut off his head, and put it at the gate so that it would be seen by all those entering and exiting. We continued in the search for infidels, and we slit the throats of those we found among them . . .

"We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers in the Mujahideen in the Philippines. [Likewise], we found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats too, Allah be praised.

" That same day we purged Muhammad's land of many Christians and polytheists . . .

"Afterward, we turned to the hotel. We entered and found a restaurant where we ate breakfast and rested a while. Then we went to the next floor, found several Hindu dogs, and cut their throats . . . brother Hussein was on the stairs and noticed an Italian infidel. He aimed his gun at him and told him to come closer. The infidel came closer. We saw his identifying documents . . . afterward we would cut his throat and dedicate him to the idiotic Italian president who wants to confront the lions of Islam."

As the author of the article goes on to state, despite what it may seem, it's not just Americans who are the targets of these guys, it's just about anyone they deem an "infidel"

Source (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3089954,00.html)

[Leo Hubbard]

So I ask the following questions:

1) What is the "War on Terror"?
2) Who is the enemy?
3) How should it be fought?
4) Is the US fighting it effectively? Are other parts of the world? If yes, how and why? If no, the same...
5) Is a victory possible for any side? Are there sides?


Our war is on those who are willing to "purposely" target civilians as an acceptable means to an end. I don't care what motivates them, once they start doing this the only objective is to stop them.

It is not actually feasable to kill them all. It is feasable to prove to those who use these methods that doing so doesn't bring them closer to victory. That doing so makes more enemies then they had before. Some would use these tactics to try to turn apathy into sympathy, these folks need to be aware that apathy is better than hatred.

For example allowing the Palestinians to win any consessions through their use of terroristic tactics could signal to the Kurds that in order to get our help they have to commit terrorism of their own. There are plenty of people out there who are stepped on or in desperate situations. We cannot allow them to think that terrorism is a means that will save them. Even if there is no other method available. We cannot be expected to save the world and we deffinitely should pay more "helpful" attention to those who gain our attention through the use of terrorism.

Other reasons for terrorism that I appeared to ignore are also unacceptable. As long as they think they have a chance of winning they have no reason to stop. So we have to convince all terrorists throughout the world that things will be worse off for you if you try it on us.

The US is fighting it as effectively as it can with our limited resources and lack of major ally support. We need to get Iraq under their own control so we can move on to Syria or Iran. Syria for stashing Iraqs WMD's and Iran for volunteering to be next by persueing their nuclear path, and support of the so called Iraqi resistence. Those against us need to understand we are not bluffing and then perhaps we could win the war against terrorism without actually fighting any war. But first we have to prove we don't bluff. Something that won't happen if Kerry is elected.

[takao]

1) What is the "War on Terror"?


unneeded big words for the obvious
some terrorists wanted a war against the US..with the US confirming this they played into their hands..aka. mistake numero uno


2) Who is the enemy?


the business like organization structures behind the actions..


3) How should it be fought?


it should be treated like what it is: a crime...
to fight crime with a invasion or pure force is a bad idea (also known as 'the israelian method') not only is it bad...it doesn't work too...
police -> court -> jail with keeping all the democratic principles



4) Is the US fighting it effectively? Are other parts of the world? If yes, how and why? If no, the same...


*no not really
*examples: germany vs. RAF, italy vs. south tyrolian seperatists
add 'adressing problems which cause terrorism the first place' to police work



5) Is a victory possible for any side? Are there sides?


financial victory: hell yeah winning all the time on both sides
yeah 2 sides : those who earn money/power with it,those suffering from it

[blackfox]

I will formally post a response later when I have the time, but for now a couple of comments...

mac, great quote...as funny as it is insightful...I look forward to your response later...

takao...excellent post, glad that you understand things so well...pity we don't...thanks

bobcat and leo, more on your posts later...

[Bobcat37]

takao...excellent post, glad that you understand things so well...pity we don't...thanks

bobcat and leo, more on your posts later...

Gee I can see where this is going :rolleyes:

Frankly I thought takao's post was mostly dumb (sorry man), and you said it was excellent, LOL. Not to mention I had a very hard time figuring out what the heck he meant past the poor grammar. Now that is humorous...

Oh well, I await you laying into my post later blackfox

[blackfox]

Gee I can see where this is going :rolleyes:

Frankly I thought takao's post was mostly dumb (sorry man), and you said it was excellent, LOL. Not to mention I had a very hard time figuring out what the heck he meant past the poor grammar. Now that is humorous...

Oh well, I await you laying into my post later blackfox

I thought you might feel I was implying that...not so. I encourage you to re-read takao's post more carefully...

I will take issue with some of what you have written, bobcat, but don't get too defensive on me...you wrote a lot to respond to...

you can lay into my post later, when it is done...

[zimv20]

1) What is the "War on Terror"?

an ill-conceived idea that a technique (terror) necessitated by disenfranchisement can be fought with measures (violence, revenge, occupation, disrespect) that only increase that disenfranchisement.


2) Who is the enemy?
the actual enemies are the forces that drive people to desperate measures. unfortunately, those who are already desperate are being targeted, and the imprecision of such targeting methods does nothing but add to the rolls of the desperate.


3) How should it be fought?
with compassion, aid and respect for other countries, their people and resources. the stuff that isn't about "being tough," which is why the "win at all costs" and violent nature of the US can end only in a losing proposition for the US. i'll repeat -- the US cannot win this fight. entropy begets only more entropy. and since the US has the most to lose -- it WILL lose.

[3rdpath]

1) the war on terror is an action against a country that has toppled legit governments and financed coups. they have exploited countries merely for resources and cheap labor and have turned a blind eye to dictators when it suited them. much of this exploitation is wrapped in the blanket of christian values although their bible seems at odds with their actions. our enemy has confused military strength and capitalism with God's will.

2)the enemy is the politics of the united states of america.

3)the war will be fought using any resources available. an ideal plan would have the enemy come to our territory making the conflict a neverending quagmire for their troops. the u.s. lost in vietnam and the ussr lost in afghanistan...superpowers can be defeated.

4) no the u.s. is not fighting it effectively, fortunately for us.

5) we will defeat the terrorists...they have already shown themselves to be liars...making false claims in order to occupy an oil rich country. the terrorists have lost the support of most of the free world and the majority of the citizens of their own country. their hubris will be their downfall.


.....and before some wiseass says i must have enjoyed 9/11...let me say i'm not condoning either side...just merely pointing out that many innocent people have died outside of the u.s.....and that no matter how much we wave the flag, there is a large stack of documents detailing the horrible things we have covertly done to other countries and their people.

paybacks a bitch.

[IJ Reilly]

A great point, 3rdpath. If we're going to use a generic term like "terror" to describe what we're fighting, then we need to accept that other people might have a very different definition of the word.

1) The "War on Terror" is an invented concept into which political leaders can wrap the fears of a nation into a convenient package.

2) The enemy is vague and amorphous. What they are called will change constantly, but they will never go away. Terror will always exist and can never be entirely defeated. Thus, the war will never end.

3) It should be fought by whatever means are necessary to keep elected officials in office.

4) If the people who are waging the war are reelected, then it is being fought effectively. All defeats for those fighting the war are victories for the terrorists.

5) War is peace. Everyone who is not on our side is on their side.

Sounds cynical, yes? But ask yourself: how close this is to our political realities in the United States today?

[diamond geezer]

1) It is a war... on... terrorists. It is a battle or a fight to rid the world of people who terrorize innocent citizens.

2) Who is the enemy? Well terrorists are. And despite how un-PC it might sound, most of the terrorists these days we have to worry about are the radical extremist Muslims.

*As for the extra info I had, here is our enemy:

Source (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3089954,00.html)

The problem is when both sides think the other are the terrorists and use that as an excuse to act in the same way.

I think it's both the US Govt/military and the Muslim extremists who are *&^ing this world up, and they can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Here's some "extra info" from your enemy Osama.
(note that this is an 1998 interview)

As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars.

The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

Here he attributes the fall of the Soviet Union to God, whereas all good Americans know it was Ronnie R.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in which the US has no mentionable role, but rather the credit goes to God, Praise and Glory be to Him, and the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, this collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant and it has started to look at itself as a Master of this world and established what it calls the new world order. It wanted to delude people that it can do whatever it wants, but it can't do this.

The US today as a result of the arrogant atmosphere has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed and wants us to agree on all these. If we refuse to do so, it will say you are terrorists. With a simple look at the US behaviors, we find that it judges the behavior of the poor Palestinian children whose country was occupied: if they throw stones against the Israeli occupation, it says they are terrorists whereas when the Israeli pilots bombed the United Nations building in Qana, Lebanon while was full of children and women, the US stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army (Gerry Adams) at the White House as a political leader , while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine.

The U.S. government went there with great pride and stayed there for some time with a strong media presence wanting to frighten people that it is the greatest power on earth. It went there with pride and with over 28,000 soldiers, to a poor unarmed people in Somalia. The goal of this was to scare the Muslim world and the whole world saying that it is able to do whatever it desires. As soon as the troops reached the Mogadishu beaches, they found no one but children. The CNN and other media cameras started photographing them (the soldiers) with their camouflage and heavy arms, entering with a parade crawling (on the ground) and showing themselves to the world as the "greatest power on earth". Resistance started against the American invasion, because Muslims do not believe the U.S. allegations that they came to save the Somalis.A man with human feelings in his heart does not distinguish between a child killed in Palestine or in Lebanon, in Iraq or in Bosnia. So how can we believe your claims that you came to save our children in Somalia while you kill our children in all of those places?

He makes as strong a case for American terrorism as the US does against Muslims.

[zimv20]

4) If the people who are waging the war are reelected, then it is being fought effectively.
wonderfully cynical! excelsior!

[Thanatoast]

I'm gonna only answer #2 at the moment, and point out that John Ashcroft has set the Justice department against pot smokers in California, women who've had abortions in the midwest, concert promoters in Montana, Haitian refugees in Florida, and dissenters in Baltimore and New York, all in the name of the War on Terror.

[skunk]

1) What is the "War on Terror"?
Religion dressed up as politics.
2) Who is the enemy?
Politics dressed up as religion.
3) How should it be fought?
With humanity, humility, invention and imagination.
4) Is the US fighting it effectively? Are other parts of the world? If yes, how and why? If no, the same...
No. This is a political conflict. It needs political solutions. These do not generally issue from the barrel of a gun, no matter how big the gun.
5) Is a victory possible for any side? Are there sides?
Humanity always loses. Humanity is on all sides.

[takao]

Frankly I thought takao's post was mostly dumb (sorry man), and you said it was excellent, LOL. Not to mention I had a very hard time figuring out what the heck he meant past the poor grammar. Now that is humorous...

well it was 3:50 AM and english isn't my native language ..so perhaps that explains my bad grammar

try and look at my examples.. how was the fight against the RAF won ? not with invading lebanon or invading russia (where some of them were trained..) no..police investigated and arrested them ..sure it took time but they got all important figures and put them in front of a court

police is the sword of democracy _not_ the army

and i'll point it out another time: with declearing it as "war on terror" you did the terrorists a favour...the german government always called it "fight against terror"

the US did worst thing possible: they gave them the full attention _they wanted_ ...not only did the US gave them attention they changed their politics as well

imagine the US as big container-freighter...then a small boat with a few guys come up who want to change your course and destroy your freight... they throw stones at you ,break a few windows but can't get on board,but what does the in impressed freighter do ? the captain turns the rudder to full left to follow the guys in the small boat. Sadly with turning so fast, 1-2 containers filled with the expensive freight called "democratic values" goes over board......sure the small boat was crushed by the giant freighter but the next day another boat will try it again...and sooner or later you run out of containers

[skunk]

well it was 3:50 AM and english isn't my native language ..so perhaps that explains my bad grammar
Your grammar is better than that of many of the "native Americans" here...

try and look at my examples.. how was the fight against the RAF won ? not with invading lebanon or invading russia (where some of them were trained..) no..police investigated and arrested them ..sure it took time but they got all important figures and put them in front of a court
He's probably really confused because he thinks you're talking about the Royal Air Force, not the Red Army Faction.

police is the sword of democracy _not_ the army
Fecking right!

imagine the US as big container-freighter...then a small boat with a few guys come up who want to change your course and destroy your freight... they throw stones at you ,break a few windows but can't get on board,but what does the in impressed freighter do ? the captain turns the rudder to full left to follow the guys in the small boat. Sadly with turning so fast, 1-2 containers filled with the expensive freight called "democratic values" goes over board......sure the small boat was crushed by the giant freighter but the next day another boat will try it again...and sooner or later you run out of containers
Nice analogy. :)

[takao]

The US is fighting it as effectively as it can with our limited resources and lack of major ally support.

name a few major allies who are missing (german and french troops are in afghanistan and germany is already putting terrorist-supporters in front of court)
for once and for all:
war in iraq != fight against terror



We need to get Iraq under their own control so we can move on to Syria or Iran. Syria for stashing Iraqs WMD's and Iran for volunteering to be next by persueing their nuclear path, and support of the so called Iraqi resistence. Those against us need to understand we are not bluffing and then perhaps we could win the war against terrorism without actually fighting any war.

did you know that that the last election turnout in Iran was higher than last in the US .... oh the irony
lets face it iran is heading towards a western democracy..sure not fast... but far from being something like saudi arabia
i know you don't like the fact that iran is more secular than saudi arabia or pakistan who are your allies ... but stop with that made up axis of evil stuff... just because they don't like US politics doesn't make them evil

how about sudan or north korea ?
did you know that pakistan and saudi arabia vetoed UN interventions in sudan and _not_ iran ?... nice allies...nice allies indeed

[skunk]

i know you don't like the fact that iran is more secular than saudi arabia or pakistan who are your allies ... but stop with that made up axis of evil stuff... just because they don't like US politics doesn't make them evil
And of course, the only other progressive secular country in the middle east is Syria.

[IJ Reilly]

well it was 3:50 AM and english isn't my native language ..so perhaps that explains my bad grammar

You probably shouldn't take it personally. His rude behavior has been directed at nearly everyone here at one time or another.

I am impressed by your ability to converse in English. I took three years of German in school but never felt entirely comfortable speaking it. I would certainly never attempt to participate in a board where German is spoken.

So don't worry. I understand what you are saying, most of the time. :)

[zimv20]

Not to mention I had a very hard time figuring out what the heck he meant past the poor grammar. Now that is humorous...

oh yeah? how's your german?

have you ever left the country?

[Desertrat]

zim, when a guy like Osama bin Laden with a personal fortune of several hundred million dollars says his motivation for hatred of the West and for the 9/11 horror show was the presence of infidels on holy soil, I really don't think that "disenfranchisement" has much to do with problem.

The disenfranchisement by the governmental entities which rule most Islamic countries may well indeed provide a bunch of potential "foot soldiers" who have a serious case of "fed up". Western, "infidel", nations did not cause that. The mullahs of the madrassas who preach hatred of all infidels didn't get that attitude about their version of Islam from Halliburton.

Folks can natter all they want about the woulda/coulda/shoulda of western nations' foreign policies of the last hundred years. Pandora's box is irretrievably open and one of the Bad Things that is on the loose is a resurgence of the old Militant Islam vs. Non Islamics.

Where is El Cid, now that we really need him?

'Rat

[skunk]

Where is El Cid, now that we really need him?
Didn't you hear? They voted for the other guy.

[mactastic]

1) What is the "War on Terror"?

The WOT is a convienent excuse to curtail our rights, install future human rights abusers into power, feed the military-industrial comples, and to allow polititians to sound 'tough on terror'. What the WOT is not is an actual war, nor is it helping to reduce the levels of terrorism. the WOT is highly analogous to the War on Drugs that our country has spent untold billions on with little or no result. Well except for all the fancy new weapons and task forces and confiscated property, and tens of thousands of Americans in jail for little more than posession.

I predict the WOT will bring the military many new toys, will cost billions and billions, will cost us more of our constitutional rights, and will produce next to no improvement in worldwide safety. In the meantime many regimes will be toppled and replaced with 'friendly' regimes the way we did in Argentina, Chile, and Iran just to name a few. At least one or two of the actions we take today will come back to bite us in the ass down the road, much the same way our shortsightness in leaving Afghanistan to fend for itself after waging a proxy war against Soviet Russia. That sure had dire consequences that we didn't think of at the time. Only our interests were important.

2) Who is the enemy?

Of course radical Islam is the enemy, but my cynical view says that pan-Arab nationalists are hijacking Islam and using it to justify their actions. They would like to see a return of the dominance of the Muslim world, in the same way many people wanted to see the return of the Roman empire.

3) How should it be fought?

With combined military and police tactics. Follow the money trail. Get some people on the insides of those organizations. Invade and occupy as little as possible.

4) Is the US fighting it effectively? Are other parts of the world? If yes, how and why? If no, the same...

No, we aren't. We have played right into UBL's hands, our actions seem almost designed to swell his ranks. He WANTS an asymmetrical war, and we have given it to him. We need to find other ways besides trying to kill them all. If that worked, Israel wouldn't be under threat of terrorist attack today.

5) Is a victory possible for any side? Are there sides?

Victory is possible, but only if there is something in it for both sides. Asymmetrical war is not something we have shown ourselves to be capable of winning decisively. We will win every battle, but that doesn't guarantee a strategic victory.

[3rdpath]

snip..
Folks can natter all they want about the woulda/coulda/shoulda of western nations' foreign policies of the last hundred years.
'Rat

what about the last 100 months?...or 100 days? i'm unclear about the length of time that must pass before tactically abusive western policies become insignificant. i believe this " well, pandora's box is open" line of thinking is a cop-out...it has served the current administration well in diverting responsibility...."lets just focus on where we are, not how we got here". only holding osama responsible for past transgressions seems a little hypocritical doesn't it? will 9/11 be any less significant to us in 100 years? i doubt it.

i truly believe that if we as a nation feel morally bound to wipe out terror, then we need to remove it from our political/corporate strategy guide also. our whole preaching of " high ideas" is nothing but rhetoric unless we implement it into our daily lives...regardless of whether its individually or en masse.

[Desertrat]

3rdpath, the hatred existed before the last 100 months. Remember WTC I? 1993? Infidels had been in Saudi Arabia long before then.

I'm not at all trying to say that the way we're doing is all fine and dandy. Nor am I trying to say there are no ongoing mistakes.

Sure, look back. But do it objectively, without passion and without worrying about blame. Try to ascertain those certain turning points and attempt to see if those sorts of forks in the diplomatic or corporate-business road rise again. Take a harder look at the side-effects and possible unintended consequences as decisions are made--the old "What if...?" game.

But never forget that there are regimes which will forever be hostile to western ideas as to individual sovereignty, personal equality and the value of individual human beings. Further remember that there are some number of millions who will cut your throat, bomb your building or shoot you for no other reason than that you are an Infidel.

And none of what I've said in this post contravenes the concepts you advanced. I'm happy to stipulate your correctness...

'Rat

[Thanatoast]

Sure, look back. But do it objectively, without passion and without worrying about blame. Try to ascertain those certain turning points and attempt to see if those sorts of forks in the diplomatic or corporate-business road rise again. Take a harder look at the side-effects and possible unintended consequences as decisions are made--the old "What if...?" game.Isn't that exactly what he was doing? By choosing our friends based on their friendliness to our interests, rather than what might have been good for the people of the countries in question, we ourselves have brought about the troubles that exist today.

[Desertrat]

"By choosing our friends based on their friendliness to our interests, rather than what might have been good for the people of the countries in question..."

You're gonna have to give some hypothetical example, because I don't see how you do that.

"Nations have interests, not friends." some English politico said. Disraeli? Disremember. I say governments are constrained to deal only with other governments, and not with NGO groups within another nation. It is the responsibility of any given government to do what is good for the people of its country.

So: Do we choose to have relations only with "good" countries? Not deal with such as Saudi Arabia or China?

How does one define "friend" in inter-governmental relations? Countries always have and always will have competing interests. (Present competitions for oil are strong and will become much stronger. At least, so far, that's purely a monetary competition, controlled by Economics 101.)

'Rat

[Thanatoast]

You're gonna have to give some hypothetical example, because I don't see how you do that.Didn't the US support the installation of a repressive government in Iran decades ago because it was more willing to deal with that the duly elected government that was in power at the time?
March 17, 2000

According to the Washington Post (3/17/2000), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright plans to announcing a major overture toward Iran. The US plans to lift bans on Iranian luxury goods, return Iran's frozen assets, and allow Irianian academics and athletes to visit the United States. These restrictions have been in place since 1979, when Iran's Islamic revolution removed the CIA-installed monarchy of 1953. Since 1979, Iran has had little trust in the United States which it sees as aiming to deny the people of Iran their democracy.

"Albright will acknowledge past American meddling in Iran, including the CIA-backed coup that toppled Iran's leftist prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and restored its monarchy in 1953. She also will express regret for Washington's shortsighted support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s." (p. A01 by John Lancaster)

"Nations have interests, not friends." some English politico said. Disraeli? Disremember. I say governments are constrained to deal only with other governments, and not with NGO groups within another nation. It is the responsibility of any given government to do what is good for the people of its country.As above, sometimes doing what is in the immediate interests of the country is not always in the long term interests of the country. It was in our interests in '53 to depose the leaders of Iran. Now Iran demonizes us, and the ME is that much more unstable.

Supporting Iraq in the 80's just because they were against Iran didn't make it in our interests. Saddam turned out to be just as bad as the people we were proxy-fighting.

How is causing more strife in anyone's interests. Pardon me, excluding the military-industrial complex.

A question: does supporting the unscrupulous make *you* unscrupulous, or just dumb?

So: Do we choose to have relations only with "good" countries? Not deal with such as Saudi Arabia or China?Aren't both candidates talking about energy independence? This idea involves both Saudi Arabia *and* China. The Saudis provide the oil, and the Chinese are our main competitors in bidding for it.

It seems to me, every time we've backed a repressive regime friendly to us, rather than left an unrepressive regime, unfriendly to us, alone, it's come back to bite us in the ass.

[Desertrat]

Hokay. Look. A major US problem has been, is, and always will be our short-term dealings, whether governmental or private sector. It's built into our system as well as our national psyche.

What you're griping about is the short-term nature of our foreign policy dealings, with their absence of adequate "What if...?" thinking included into them. Welcome to the club.

Re Iran: The CIA got involved in the overthrow of Mossadegh because it was believed he was playing footsie with the USSR and we wanted "our" Shah to replace him. Part of the Shah's problem was the power struggle with the mullahs over the secularization of the country. The mullahs won. So, after the embassy takeover by the New Iran Gummint, we wound up supporting Hussein in the new-to-us but classic Arab "The enemy of our enemy is our friend." style. Trouble was, we apparently believed that the friendship was eternal.

But I submit it's not the dealing with Bad Countries so much as the absence of looking far enough ahead, and dealing with patience. Folks gripe about the slowness of government doings, but in the game of International Chess, our State Department seems to suffer from the American desire for instant gratification...

'Rat

[mactastic]

So would that put you in the camp of folks who think this administration has done enough long-term planning and asked enough 'what if's' about invading Iraq?

Or do you (like me) think that the Iraq invasion was yet another in a long line of short-term plus (which IMHO is debatable as well) but long term headache?

[skunk]

yet another in a long line of short-term plus
Did I miss something??

[mactastic]

I don't know, did you miss the boost in Bush's poll numbers during the run-up to the war? :p

Besides, haven't you heard? The US and the world are safer today than before the Iraq war!Oh wait, that report was a total fabrication...shhhhhh

[katchow]

i think i need some clarification on iraq...

i saw a commercial last night (approved by Bush) that said something to the effect of "the world is getting safer...w/ the removal of 2 terrorist regimes"...all the while envoking national pride w/ olympic imagery...


did i miss something? would you define iraq (pre invasion of course) as a 'terrorist' regime?

[skunk]

did i miss something? would you define iraq (pre invasion of course) as a 'terrorist' regime?
For that matter, was the Taleban a "terrorist regime"?

[katchow]

For that matter, was the Taleban a "terrorist regime"?

they were playing hosts, weren't they?

[pseudobrit]

they were playing hosts, weren't they?

I don't think they were in a position to do anything about Binladen. They were (and still are, sadly, because the Taleban are still running the show over there) too fragmented and controlled by regional leaders; they had no central government.

[macsrus]

i think i need some clarification on iraq...

i saw a commercial last night (approved by Bush) that said something to the effect of "the world is getting safer...w/ the removal of 2 terrorist regimes"...all the while envoking national pride w/ olympic imagery...


did i miss something? would you define iraq (pre invasion of course) as a 'terrorist' regime?

I wouldnt consider pre-War Iraq as a terrorist regime.. a militant dictatorship yes
Afganastan now thats a different story

BUT....

I know this will start a flame war.... But every Islamic country is a harbor for terrorists.... I dont know what could or should be done about it...
But the fact is terrorism is rampant in Islamic countries...

[Neserk]

I know this will start a flame war.... But every Islamic country is a harbor for terrorists....


So is the United States, or have you forgotten the Unibomber and The Oklahoma City Bombing and Waco, TX?

[macsrus]

So is the United States, or have you forgotten the Unibomber and The Oklahoma City Bombing and Waco, TX?


hmmmm are you really seriously trying to make that comparison....

[Neserk]

hmmmm are you really seriously trying to make that comparison....


I wasn't the one to make it. They were recognized as terrorists when they terrorized people.

[Thanatoast]

hmmmm are you really seriously trying to make that comparison....How about this comparison: The terrorists of 9-11 were staying in the US long before the event took palce. Therefore, we were also "harbouring" terrorists. That doesn't mean we approved of them.

[mactastic]

hmmmm are you really seriously trying to make that comparison....

What specifically is it about Muslim countries that makes them harbors for terrorists?

[macsrus]

How about this comparison: The terrorists of 9-11 were staying in the US long before the event took palce. Therefore, we were also "harbouring" terrorists. That doesn't mean we approved of them.


Thats a stretch.....
Lets see.... How many U.S. citizens are sitting at home today trying to think up where in the world they are going to strap a bomb to themselves...
And blow up themselves and a bunch of other innocent people....

The answer not many....

But turn that around to Islamic countries.... Heck they are being taught that its a ticket straight to paradise....

Before you say not all of them.... look at the percentages...
And when you talk about approving of them... How about Saudi Arabia...
The public line is they dont approve of them... But they have a fund for supporting the martyrs families...Now who are they calling the martyrs?
The same terrorists that blow themselves up and others...

[Thanatoast]

Thats a stretch.....
Lets see.... How many U.S. citizens are sitting at home today trying to think up where in the world they are going to strap a bomb to themselves...
And blow up themselves and a bunch of other innocent people....

The answer not many....

But turn that around to Islamic countries.... Heck they are being taught that its a ticket straight to paradise....

Before you say not all of them.... look at the percentages...
And when you talk about approving of them... How about Saudi Arabia...
The public line is they dont approve of them... But they have a fund for supporting the martyrs families...Now who are they calling the martyrs?
The same terrorists that blow themselves up and others...How many Americans are being told to fear the rest of the world? That they're all out to get us and that the only way to survive is to attack them before they attack us. We've sent 200,000 troops over there to fight terrorism in a country where it wast, and now we've got a huge mess in our hands. You don't think those Muslim countries notice when we pull **** like that? This can all be turned around either way, it just depends on your perspective. Right now, we all fear and hate eachother. That's a bad way to do international relations.

[macsrus]

What specifically is it about Muslim countries that makes them harbors for terrorists?

Now that is the $64000 question....

I dont pretend to understand a man with the rational of a terrorist...
I dont pretend to understand a man who believes he is going straight to heaven by killing others....

I have a question....

On Sept 11 a group of men flew planes into the World Trade Center.... killing themselves and others that they never knew in the name of their GOD
The same day a group of men ran into the Same buildings and died trying to save the lives of people they didnt know...

Which group of men are justified in the eyes of GOD

[Neserk]

Thats a stretch.....
Lets see.... How many U.S. citizens are sitting at home today trying to think up where in the world they are going to strap a bomb to themselves...
And blow up themselves and a bunch of other innocent people....

The answer not many....

But turn that around to Islamic countries.... Heck they are being taught that its a ticket straight to paradise....

Before you say not all of them.... look at the percentages...
And when you talk about approving of them... How about Saudi Arabia...
The public line is they dont approve of them... But they have a fund for supporting the martyrs families...Now who are they calling the martyrs?
The same terrorists that blow themselves up and others...


So are you limiting terror to suicide bombers? Perhaps your problem is that you let your own prejudice define your terms.

[macsrus]

So are you limiting terror to suicide bombers? Perhaps your problem is that you let your own prejudice define your terms.

Oh... You must have just won the argument....
Since you resorted to personally attacking me...

[Neserk]

Oh... You must have just won the argument....
Since you resorted to personally attacking me...

No attack. You obviously are defining your terms based on who you see as terrorists -- not letting the defnition of terrorists help you in your judgement. Your prejudices are obvious to anyone who reads your posts. Does it occur to you that when a man hits the woman he lives with he is a terrorist? Or that when a relgiious organization tells its followers that if they don't believe x, y, & z they will go to hell that they are also terrorists? A terrorist is someone who uses fear and physical or psyhchological violence to try and control people.

[macsrus]

But you have to concede that your knowledge of Islamic countries comes almost entirely from the media, with no first hand experience. This goes along my thoughts in another thread. (How america is viewed as a violent place by some people who's only knowledge of our country comes from their media and our movies.)

Well in my case no....
I worked in Saudi.... for 7 years

[IJ Reilly]

On Sept 11 a group of men flew planes into the World Trade Center.... killing themselves and others that they never knew in the name of their GOD
The same day a group of men ran into the Same buildings and died trying to save the lives of people they didnt know...

Which group of men are justified in the eyes of GOD

I can't answer your questions (and thus forfeit the $64,0000), but do have an idea that God must very annoyed by all the things humans do in His name.

[Neserk]

But you have to concede that your knowledge of Islamic countries comes almost entirely from the media, with no first hand experience. This goes along my thoughts in another thread. (How america is viewed as a violent place by some people who's only knowledge of our country comes from their media and our movies.)

Very true. Islam forbids suicide. Jihad is no different than the Israelites of the OT conquering and killing their neighbors. Most americans who haven't studied Islam (or in my case aren't married to someone who has) do not know that.

[Neserk]

God must very annoyed by all the things humans do in His name.


Very annoyed... to say the least.

[macsrus]

Well then you don't have to concede. :p (And I thought the Saudi's were the most peaceful Islamic country. But I only know a few Islamic countries.)

peacful is a relative term....
The kingdom is ruled with an iron fist... All information coming in and out of the country is censored....
Which is amazing to me when they claim they dont know that so and so was leading a terrorist cell....

My wife hated Jeddah... she had to stay in the compound most of the time... or risk abuse from the general population...

[pseudobrit]

But every Islamic country is a harbor for terrorists.... I dont know what could or should be done about it...
But the fact is terrorism is rampant in Islamic countries...

How many U.S. citizens are sitting at home today trying to think up where in the world they are going to strap a bomb to themselves...
And blow up themselves and a bunch of other innocent people....

The answer not many....

But turn that around to Islamic countries.... Heck they are being taught that its a ticket straight to paradise....

Before you say not all of them.... look at the percentages...
And when you talk about approving of them... How about Saudi Arabia...
The public line is they dont approve of them... But they have a fund for supporting the martyrs families...Now who are they calling the martyrs?
The same terrorists that blow themselves up and others...

I worked in Saudi.... for 7 years

Something doesn't add up. I know of very few people who were immersed in a culture for years (I start to get my head around a new area after about a week) and still seem to have such a limited, prejudiced view of it.

You have an ellipse addiction, too.

[Neserk]

and still seem to have such a limited, prejudiced view of it.




Told you so :p

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=85258&page=3

This will help you understand his prejudice.

[mactastic]

Now that is the $64000 question....

I dont pretend to understand a man with the rational of a terrorist...
I dont pretend to understand a man who believes he is going straight to heaven by killing others....

I have a question....

On Sept 11 a group of men flew planes into the World Trade Center.... killing themselves and others that they never knew in the name of their GOD
The same day a group of men ran into the Same buildings and died trying to save the lives of people they didnt know...

Which group of men are justified in the eyes of GOD

So IOW you have no idea why you hold the views you do? You can't even begin to guess at why you think all muslim countries are harbors for terrorists?

Is Kuwait a harbor for terrorists? How about Qatar? And what are you criteria for being a terrorist harbor? Does is involve government support? Does it only require that muslim terrorists be present in the country?

And what the heck does who is more justified in the eyes of GOD have to do with your contention that all Muslim countries are harbors for terrorists? Stop deflecting the issue.

[blackfox]

To redirect things a little...part of why I was asking for a definition of the WOT, is though most of us agree is is an abstract, ephemeral term...more marketing than anything else, for many it is very real.

This, of course, is obvious. What I specifically was thinking of, however, is the fates and rights of POW's in this "War". Although the US is *largely* abiding by the GC and other International Conventions concerning POW and other captured personnel, the nature of this "war", complicates and subverts the rules laid down. For example, traditionally POW can be held until the end of the conflict...in this case, however, the "conflict" is not a concrete engagement, and so theoretically these people could be held for the rest of their lifetimes, w/o access to a lawyer etc. This is all legal w/ regards to agreed-upon conventions...

As the WOT seems more analgous to the Cold War than to a specific engagement, what is the deal here? A clever manipulation of wording?

It is important not only to think of what WOT should mean, but also what is conceiveably could be made to mean...