<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 17 2003, 05:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 17 2003, 05:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This place has been getting too quiet. So lets get some lively debate happening!
It's been over two years since the events of September 11 and the beginning of the "War of Terror". Since S-11, two invasions, of Afghanistan and Iraq, have been carried out, and hundreds of terrorist suspects arrested in various countries across the world.
Yet looking back over the past months, one must start to question whether we're getting anywhere. The Italian police barracks in Iraq demolished, the UN Iraq headquaters bombed, Saudi Arabia rocked by bombing attacks, Turkish synagogues attacked, US soldiers suffering daily attacks in Iraq. Every day we look at the news and see some other attack, be it a sniper in Baghdad or a car bomb in Riyadh.
So we ask ourselves. We've spend billions fighting this war. We've invaded two nations. Arrested hundreds. But for what?
Certainly the terrorist threat has not diminished. Just because there hasn't been another attack on the scale of S-11 doesn't mean it isn't possible, and the attacks that have continued to occur seem to indicate that there remain commited individuals willing and able to harm the US and it's allies.
Certainly Al Quaeda isn't gone, and they remain a potent threat. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Even if he is dead though, others have taken over the organisation.
Your thoughts please.
Edited mistake. Thanks Urza <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The war on terror is a war on ideas, it can never be won. Like the war on drugs, but with an even bigger budget.
There is no sure fire way of stopping terrorism short of ending humanity as a whole, but who of sound mind is willing to allow someone to press the button for them? I'm guessing no one.
While invading other countries to dispose of a fanatical few is bad for public images, acting on a reactionary basis is bad for the home country.
If nations simply give in....will terrorists become less fanatical? If you hand a bank robber money and allow him to escape unharmed...will he stop robbing banks? Did the Europeans' policy of appeasement actually stop Hitler from invading other countries? Are fanatics reasonable?
It is assured that if nothing is done, many people will suffer. But it is also assured if something is done, brave men and women will die fighting.
Naturally I assume this of anyone:
1. We know we should do something. 2. We know we are not safe. 3. We know from history that neither isolationism nor appeasement work. Two examples: Europe and Hitler, the Romans and Attila the Hun. 4. We want peace and freedom. 5. We do not want to get our hands dirty.
So basically, what do we do about it?
So far the biggest thorn in the world's collective side has been terrorists fed cash, troops, and weapons from middle eastern countries. Enter Afganistan, enter Iraq, enter Saudi Arabia, enter Syria, enter Iran...ect.
Some of these countries have been less than willing to help. Some appear to help, but have a lot of dirty laundry hidden in the next room. All are going to react unfavorably to any foreign presence, especially that of the United States. A very intelligent person once said "They are quarrels with borders." They bicker and war amongst themselves constantly. Killing is part of their culture. Oppression is the norm, it's the climate people live in. Basically they are a big family of brothers, very rowdy brothers. They won't think a second before breaking one-another's arms...but they will unite in hatred against anything unfamiliar.
If we go in Arabs are gonna hate us more and the fanatics will attack viciously in defense of their beautifully orchestrated climate of oppression. If we back down, the general public will respect us less and give the fanatics more justification to "cleanse" the whimpering "infidels."
Sometimes you just have to bite the proverbial "bullet." It's gonna hurt images for a while, but it could very well help in the long run.
It's like telling the truth to your parents when you are about seven years old and just broke mom's favorite lamp. The whipping hurts like heck, but your parents will treat you better in the long run. Why? Because you didn't lie, you stood your ground, and they respect that in you.
If I had the chance I would be in the military. I love my country, but I am not physically capable of performing a soldier's duty. I have many friends in the military, some of my greatest buddies are actually in the middle east right now. I watch the news every day and I get frightened when I hear of another dying. I pray whenever I have the chance that they will be all right and come back safe so we can talk and drink and shoot pool.
I hate it that my best pals are in danger without me. I wish I was in there with them, but nope I just can't. So I have to sit here and listen to people capable of being military material talk about them as if they are unwilling to bear the burdon. As if they are suddenly going to hate the country if they get hurt, as if their families will fly into a blind rage and become terrorists themselves if anything happens to them. The people who comment on their lives rarely give them the credit they deserve.
They are part of a plot to try and save as many good people as possible, but I agree that even one death looks very bad. If push comes to shove, there is another way of wiping out Terrorist support in the middle east. Up to a point it would involve far fewer allied casualties. But the world only needs so many glass incased sand dunes. ....At least the resulting death toll will be viewed as a statistic by our media.
[QUOTE]If nations simply give in....will terrorists become less fanatical? If you hand a bank robber money and allow him to escape unharmed...will he stop robbing banks? Did the Europeans' policy of appeasement actually stop Hitler from invading other countries? Are fanatics reasonable?[/QUOTE]
Terrorists are not bankrobbers. Bankrobbers do not blow themselve up. They recruit new terrorists from moderate thinking people. Hitler had a high degree of power over the people, terrorists get their power from the people, and can do nothing without them.
[QUOTE]It is assured that if nothing is done, many people will suffer. But it is also assured if something is done, brave men and women will die fighting.[/QUOTE]
Ehm, sure. What measures do you propose?
[QUOTE]Naturally I assume this of anyone:
1. We know we should do something. 2. We know we are not safe. 3. We know from history that neither isolationism nor appeasement work. Two examples: Europe and Hitler, the Romans and Attila the Hun. 4. We want peace and freedom. 5. We do not want to get our hands dirty.[/QUOTE]
1. But what? 2. Safe is a relative word. Ten- to hundred thousand times more people die from malaria, AIDs, or other diseases than from international terrorism. 3. International terrorism can not be compared to both 4. Eh, sure 5. True
[QUOTE]So basically, what do we do about it?
So far the biggest thorn in the world's collective side has been terrorists fed cash, troops, and weapons from middle eastern countries. Enter Afganistan, enter Iraq, enter Saudi Arabia, enter Syria, enter Iran...ect.[/QUOTE]
No. Terrorism is not actively supported by any of those countries. Some groups within those countries might support it, but that is something else and not contained to a region. (remember the phrase international terror?)
[QUOTE]Some of these countries have been less than willing to help. Some appear to help, but have a lot of dirty laundry hidden in the next room. All are going to react unfavorably to any foreign presence, especially that of the United States. A very intelligent person once said "They are quarrels with borders." They bicker and war amongst themselves constantly. Killing is part of their culture. Oppression is the norm, it's the climate people live in. Basically they are a big family of brothers, very rowdy brothers. They won't think a second before breaking one-another's arms...but they will unite in hatred against anything unfamiliar. [/QUOTE]
Of course they would react unfavourably to foreign presence, it is an assault on their sovereignty. War is not that common in the Middle East. Why is killing more a part of arabic or persian culture than it is part of american culture? If I remember correctly, capital punishment is quite common. I see a lot of opinion and no facts whatsoever. Yea, there are a lot of dictatorships in the Middle East, most of them sponsored by the US. A more democratic regime, that of Iran, is somehow considered especially despotic, for no apparent reason.
[QUOTE]If we go in Arabs are gonna hate us more and the fanatics will attack viciously in defense of their beautifully orchestrated climate of oppression. If we back down, the general public will respect us less and give the fanatics more justification to "cleanse" the whimpering "infidels."
Eh, no. And yes, there are other ways than war.
[QUOTE]Sometimes you just have to bite the proverbial "bullet." It's gonna hurt images for a while, but it could very well help in the long run. [/QUOTE]
So, why would you bite the bullet in this case?
[QUOTE]It's like telling the truth to your parents when you are about seven years old and just broke mom's favorite lamp. The whipping hurts like heck, but your parents will treat you better in the long run. Why? Because you didn't lie, you stood your ground, and they respect that in you. [/QUOTE]
So, why would you bite the bullet in this case?
[QUOTE]If I had the chance I would be in the military. I love my country, but I am not physically capable of performing a soldier's duty. I have many friends in the military, some of my greatest buddies are actually in the middle east right now. I watch the news every day and I get frightened when I hear of another dying. I pray whenever I have the chance that they will be all right and come back safe so we can talk and drink and shoot pool.[/QUOTE]
Well, I hope you will
[QUOTE]I hate it that my best pals are in danger without me. I wish I was in there with them, but nope I just can't. So I have to sit here and listen to people capable of being military material talk about them as if they are unwilling to bear the burdon. As if they are suddenly going to hate the country if they get hurt, as if their families will fly into a blind rage and become terrorists themselves if anything happens to them. The people who comment on their lives rarely give them the credit they deserve. [/QUOTE]
Ok, giving your life for something you believe in is noble, but that does not make the thing you believe in itself noble.
[QUOTE]They are part of a plot to try and save as many good people as possible, but I agree that even one death looks very bad. If push comes to shove, there is another way of wiping out Terrorist support in the middle east. Up to a point it would involve far fewer allied casualties. But the world only needs so many glass incased sand dunes. ....At least the resulting death toll will be viewed as a statistic by our media.[/QUOTE]
And, why is this the best option? Have there been good results from acting like this against terror, in, let's say, Israel? Nope.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 21 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 21 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Terrorists are not bankrobbers. Bankrobbers do not blow themselve up. They recruit new terrorists from moderate thinking people. Hitler had a high degree of power over the people, terrorists get their power from the people, and can do nothing without them.
Ehm, sure. What measures do you propose?
1. But what? 2. Safe is a relative word. Ten- to hundred thousand times more people die from malaria, AIDs, or other diseases than from international terrorism. 3. International terrorism can not be compared to both 4. Eh, sure 5. True
No. Terrorism is not actively supported by any of those countries. Some groups within those countries might support it, but that is something else and not contained to a region. (remember the phrase international terror?)
Of course they would react unfavourably to foreign presence, it is an assault on their sovereignty. War is not that common in the Middle East. Why is killing more a part of arabic or persian culture than it is part of american culture? If I remember correctly, capital punishment is quite common. I see a lot of opinion and no facts whatsoever. Yea, there are a lot of dictatorships in the Middle East, most of them sponsored by the US. A more democratic regime, that of Iran, is somehow considered especially despotic, for no apparent reason.
Eh, no. And yes, there are other ways than war.
So, why would you bite the bullet in this case?
And, why is this the best option? Have there been good results from acting like this against terror, in, let's say, Israel? Nope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good job stating the obvious... Terrorrists are not bank robbers... Never would've guessed that. Then again, you missed the whole point. To spell it out for you: Giving bank robbers money will not make them stop robbing banks... Only encourage them to do it more. Giving in to terrorrist demands will not make them stop demanding... Only encourage them to do it more. See the connection?
He's proprosing that something be done other than nothing. Pretty simple. Specifics? Kill the terrorrists. Remove their power base. blah blah blah. So many things to do... Nothing will do it alone.... And it will not happen over night.
1. Again... Something > Nothing 2. Safe is not a realtive term. We are talking about terrorrist actions here. Not malaria. Not AIDS. Just because people die from diseases does not mean we should ignore terrorrists until we cure them. And yes, that is what you implied. 3. Again... It is not a comparison but an analogy that you seem not able to comprehend. Again... The examples work well. 4. He's right. Your comment was unneccessarily demeaning. 5. Agree
Once again you are wrong. Terrorrism has been actively supported by Afghanistan ( well, until the US threw out the Taliban ). And I could've sworn that Saddam was known to give money to the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers, not to mention asylum to known terrorrists. Saudi Arabia is a big mess and very few know their real purpose in any of this. Syria... ha ha.
International terrorrism means that terrorrist acts are committed across the globe by a group. It just so happens that one of these groups is primarily located within the Mid East ( ya know... I think that's considered a "region" ).
Assault on their sovereignty? Have we stepped foot in Syria? Iran? They have both been less than willing for reasons that have nothing to do with sovereignty. War has been more common in the Middle East than say.... In many other parts of the world in recent history. How many wars with Israel? How many wars between Iraq and Iran? How many war between Pakistan and India? How many wars in Iraq? Killing, however, is just a part of human culture. I dont necessarily agree with the statement that its part of their culture. Lots of US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East? Where? Saudi Arabia? Possibly. But not a dictatorship... Its a monarcy. Syria? Yeah right. Iran? HA! Iraq? Not any more... And not for some time. Israel? Oh yeah, that's a democracy. Lebanon? Jordan? US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East are really non-existent. Iran democratic? Are you trying to redefine a word again ( e.g. international terror )? Iran is far from democratic. I had to laugh when I read that one.
There are always other ways than war... But unfortunately they dont always work or are extremely inpractical.
Biting the bullet in this case means going to war regardless of what the international community in all its "wisdom" has to say. Was it that mistifying?
Good results from combatting terrorrism dead one... Hrmm.... Lets see. Iraq is free. Afghanistan is free. Either way... It is far better than just sitting back and letting terrorrism happen. Diplomacy will not end terrorrism. Thinking that will only bring more terrorrists acts. Israel is never really the recipient of international terrorrism though. What they face is based locally. And the groups that continue to attack Israel never really bother with spreading their evil to other parts of the world ( not like they have to anyways... others seem to do it just fine ).
I just have to laugh again tho... Iran... a democracy... LOL
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 22 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 22 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good job stating the obvious... Terrorrists are not bank robbers... Never would've guessed that. Then again, you missed the whole point. To spell it out for you: Giving bank robbers money will not make them stop robbing banks... Only encourage them to do it more. Giving in to terrorrist demands will not make them stop demanding... Only encourage them to do it more. See the connection? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> there are several reasons why this is not a good analogy.
1) bank robbers are not activly engaging in a campainge against a nation resposible for more deaths worldwide than I think you care to imagine. 2) there is a differance between 'ignoring' and 'encouraging'. giving money to robbers is not the same as not arresting them. 3) in fact point two bears closer examination because in the context of the war on terror you have actually switched the 'encourage' and 'ignore'; to ignore terrorists is less of an ensentive for future terrorists to attack than it is to bomb their homelands [eg. encourage them].
not only did you spit this back in Urzas face, you also pointed out how discourtious <i>he</i> was. but thats besides the point.
the way I see it. now.
1) Have the terrorists stopped their attacks since the Coalition invaded Iraq?
the answer seems to be no, there have been more and more attacks.
2) Is it then safe to say that the war on terror isnt working? ie. isnt stopping terrorism?
well there are really two ways to see this. you can either say,
"attacking other nations as a means to end terrorism isnt really a very good idea, more and more terrorist attacks are occuring, we should stop provoking more attacks." or you could say "we just arent hitting them hard enough, lets invade some more places and see if we cant kill terrorism for good"
in my opinion, the first way of seeing things is entirely more sane than the second.
Excellent post Melotinin, and you also identified the reasons behind my starting of this thread. Those two simple questions:
1) Have the terrorists stopped their attacks since the Coalition invaded Iraq?
2) Is it then safe to say that the war on terror isnt working? ie. isnt stopping terrorism?
That's what is trying to be addressed here. Looking at the news, we find that <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html' target='_blank'>there has been another attack</a>. What's worse is that these attacks have been getting progressively worse and worse. And they show no sign of slackening off. If anything, the people behind these actions seem to gaining in strength and support.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 22 2003, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 22 2003, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) Have the terrorists stopped their attacks since the Coalition invaded Iraq?
2) Is it then safe to say that the war on terror isnt working? ie. isnt stopping terrorism?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me get this over with, cause I respect ya Ryo...though I may not agree at all.
1: No, simply attempting to remove a possible stronghold they can run to for their various needs will not eliminate the problem. It will eliminate a singular stronghold.
This is a war without defined borders. You cannot walk into it thinking one offensive action will do anything more than enrage the opponent. Then again, it might do something. There's just too much up for grabs on the issue.
2: No, again. Since we are unable to see things through the eyes of terrorists and their leaders all we can offer is speculation based on what WE see. We see the tragedies, not the victories.
Lying about your situation is a time tested strategy. By bluffing your opponent into thinking you are still strong, you can occasionally force them to throw their hand...to quit. Expecting this you can assume that the candle burns brightest before it loses it's flame.....but then again we are taking about people's lives, not candles. So nothing that significant should be assumed.
We are fighting a war of attrition. While it's not as efficient as say...a nuclear holocaust. It's possible to have more favorable results. Trouble is these wars take alot of time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) bank robbers are not activly engaging in a campainge against a nation resposible for more deaths worldwide than I think you care to imagine. 2) there is a differance between 'ignoring' and 'encouraging'. giving money to robbers is not the same as not arresting them. 3) in fact point two bears closer examination because in the context of the war on terror you have actually switched the 'encourage' and 'ignore'; to ignore terrorists is less of an ensentive for future terrorists to attack than it is to bomb their homelands [eg. encourage them]. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
About the bank robbers.
1: They are used as an analogy. It does not matter what their purpose is. It does matter what they do when they get their way.
By the way.... Who says there aren't some bank robbers with such a cause?
There will never be a shortage of blame for any country. 'cept maybe Denmark... Can't remember anything they've done.
2: Hah! Your reasoning is flawed. A bank robber, if ignored, <b>encourages himself</b> by taking the money anyway. That's what he's there to do, rob a bank. If you don't stop him...he's gonna do it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Eventually he might start robbing larger banks...I mean...no one is stopping him and he's making a killing.
Terrorists are not entirely different but normally their aims are. They want to harm a group of people so much that their objective is realised and put into practice. If they are not stopped, terrible things happen. It's only a matter of time before there is a public outcry to give in.
If their smaller goals are met there is a very good chance they will simply get larger goals. If some had their way, they'd line up everyone they "didn't like" reguardless of the offense and if they did not convert to their fanatical beliefs they'd shoot them one-by-one.
3: Personally, I think the United States of America would do better to simply leave the middle east alone. Shocking huh? But when I say leave alone, I mean leave alone. (Hurry the heck up fuel cell researchers.)
<!--QuoteBegin--AU-Scorpion+Nov 23 2003, 01:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AU-Scorpion @ Nov 23 2003, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1: No, simply attempting to remove a possible stronghold they can run to for their various needs will not eliminate the problem. It will eliminate a singular stronghold.
This is a war without defined borders. You cannot walk into it thinking one offensive action will do anything more than enrage the opponent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If this is so, does it not follow that the war can never be won?
consider, even if America were to invade and 'stabalise' every country known to, or suspected of giving aid to terrorists. To bomb and destroy every building ever used by a terrorist. To kill every single terrorist on the face of the earth, using the methods which have been demonstrated in Afganistan and Iraq. That the sheer amount of destrucion, death (this counts not only families of terrorists, but families of 'colateral damage' eg. civilians) and global unrest, would be enough to sustain, if not increase the number of terrorists seeking to bring about the fall of the US (and allies).
but then, perhaps this is the plan...
I wouldnt mind an endless war, apart from lots and lots of people tend to die... shame really i guess.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Nov 23 2003, 03:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Nov 23 2003, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If this is so, does it not follow that the war can never be won?
consider, even if America were to invade and 'stabalise' every country known to, or suspected of giving aid to terrorists. To bomb and destroy every building ever used by a terrorist. To kill every single terrorist on the face of the earth, using the methods which have been demonstrated in Afganistan and Iraq. That the sheer amount of destrucion, death (this counts not only families of terrorists, but families of 'colateral damage' eg. civilians) and global unrest, would be enough to sustain, if not increase the number of terrorists seeking to bring about the fall of the US (and allies).
but then, perhaps this is the plan...
I wouldnt mind an endless war, apart from lots and lots of people tend to die... shame really i guess. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Considered, but are you suggesting we bow to their demands, wait for years until the UN decides to get off it's collective **** and enforce it's resolutions before holocaustesque tragedies like Sarajevo, or perhaps start nuclear armageddon? What do you suggest we do? It might not be pretty but at least this is something.
Actually a war like this can still be won. Think of it like this:
A woman who would have been a victim of a mugging case took the initiative and cut one of the mugger's fingers off.
He's angry and in a bit of pain. He is probably going to seek to strike back. It's no longer business as usual, it's personal.
Okay, say she systematically cuts fingers off one by one. Eventually, maybe even after the second finger, he's gonna stop trying and start running.
It's just a matter of how much they can take. If they keep striking at countries near the middle east, all the better. More people will start to hate them, see us doing something about them, and possibly help us...if not, just lend no aid to the terrorists. It's us commiting terrorism on the terrorists...while at the same time giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
It's not gonna be pretty, there's gonna be casualties, it's gonna take a while, and there is no guarantee that the rest of the world is going to help at all. Fun stuff really. Fun stuff.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 22 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 22 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good job stating the obvious... Terrorrists are not bank robbers... Never would've guessed that. Then again, you missed the whole point. To spell it out for you: Giving bank robbers money will not make them stop robbing banks... Only encourage them to do it more. Giving in to terrorrist demands will not make them stop demanding... Only encourage them to do it more. See the connection?*
He's proprosing that something be done other than nothing. Pretty simple. Specifics? Kill the terrorrists. Remove their power base. blah blah blah. So many things to do... Nothing will do it alone.... And it will not happen over night.*
1. Again... Something > Nothing** 2. Safe is not a realtive term. We are talking about terrorrist actions here. Not malaria. Not AIDS. Just because people die from diseases does not mean we should ignore terrorrists until we cure them. And yes, that is what you implied.*** 3. Again... It is not a comparison but an analogy that you seem not able to comprehend. Again... The examples work well.*** 4. He's right. Your comment was unneccessarily demeaning. 5. Agree
Once again you are wrong. Terrorrism has been actively supported by Afghanistan ( well, until the US threw out the Taliban ). And I could've sworn that Saddam was known to give money to the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers, not to mention asylum to known terrorrists. Saudi Arabia is a big mess and very few know their real purpose in any of this. Syria... ha ha.****
International terrorrism means that terrorrist acts are committed across the globe by a group. It just so happens that one of these groups is primarily located within the Mid East ( ya know... I think that's considered a "region" ).*****
No, International terrorism means that the actors are spread around the globe, and not based in one particular region.
Assault on their sovereignty? Have we stepped foot in Syria? Iran? They have both been less than willing for reasons that have nothing to do with sovereignty. War has been more common in the Middle East than say.... In many other parts of the world in recent history. How many wars with Israel? How many wars between Iraq and Iran? How many war between Pakistan and India? How many wars in Iraq? Killing, however, is just a part of human culture. I dont necessarily agree with the statement that its part of their culture. Lots of US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East? Where? Saudi Arabia? Possibly. But not a dictatorship... Its a monarcy. Syria? Yeah right. Iran? HA! Iraq? Not any more... And not for some time. Israel? Oh yeah, that's a democracy. Lebanon? Jordan? US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East are really non-existent. Iran democratic? Are you trying to redefine a word again ( e.g. international terror )? Iran is far from democratic. I had to laugh when I read that one.*****
There are always other ways than war... But unfortunately they dont always work or are extremely inpractical.******
Biting the bullet in this case means going to war regardless of what the international community in all its "wisdom" has to say. Was it that mistifying?*******
Good results from combatting terrorrism dead one... Hrmm.... Lets see. Iraq is free. Afghanistan is free. Either way... It is far better than just sitting back and letting terrorrism happen. Diplomacy will not end terrorrism. Thinking that will only bring more terrorrists acts. Israel is never really the recipient of international terrorrism though. What they face is based locally. And the groups that continue to attack Israel never really bother with spreading their evil to other parts of the world ( not like they have to anyways... others seem to do it just fine ).*********
I just have to laugh again tho... Iran... a democracy... LOL********** <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, thanks for your posts, melatonin <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
*Well, I do see some connection. Offering visible other ways out of problems, such as actively seeking counsil from iraqi democratic infrastructure, negotiating fair and square, and withdrawing support from such States as Israel or undemocratic governments and supporting opposition groups. In other words, make them democrats by being democratic in stead of making them throw bombs by throwing bombs at them. ( to put it very bluntly).
Pretty simple. Kill all terrorists. Aha. Like, killing Osama Bin Laden? Like killing Saddam Hussein? Oo, that is soo very simple and you totally succeeded in doing that! Very simple indeed. Remove the power base? Has support for extremists grown or declined since the so-called "War on terror" started? Too easy mate.
**Did I say we should do nothing? No. ***Bush's war in Iraq costed about 87 billion, right? That is enough to launch an effective campaign against AIDS and malaria. Am I implying that that is more important than attacking "rogue states"? Yep. ***No, the analogy is faulty. Different problems have different solutions. I am not using fertilizer to do my homework. ****Taliban did support Al Quaeda, true. But I would not call it a government. Ok, Saddam did support palestian suicide bombers ( not really international terrorism). AFAIK, no evidence on Saudi Arabia or Syria. *****True, war has been more common in RECENT history. That is, since 1945. Wars sponsored by the US, wars fought by Russia and US-taught and supported groups in Afghanistan. Wars between Israel ( a new state always causes destabiolization) and various arab countries. The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship is that in monarchy, dictatorship is hereditary. Egypt, authoritarian, is befriended with the US. Kuwayt isnt all that democratic either. Israel is a democracy, sure. I am not saying that Iran is democratic, I am just pointing out that it is way more democratic than Saudi Arabia. ******Why do you think they will not work this time? *******Well, I didnt know the expression, I'm foreign <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. ********Is there a democratic regime in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. Did it create more terrorists than it killed? Yep. Is there any proof the current "stability" (lol) is maintained? Nope. So is it succesfull? Nope. Palestinians did take their cause abroud, especially in the 60's/ 70's. Hijacking airplanes and all. Anyway, why would international terror be easier to get rid of than local terror? ********** well, they do have a right to vote, had massive demonstrations. That's at least a bit democratic ( AND NO I DINT SAY IT WAS A DEMOCRACY)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1: No, simply attempting to remove a possible stronghold they can run to for their various needs will not eliminate the problem. It will eliminate a singular stronghold.
This is a war without defined borders. You cannot walk into it thinking one offensive action will do anything more than enrage the opponent. Then again, it might do something. There's just too much up for grabs on the issue.
2: No, again. Since we are unable to see things through the eyes of terrorists and their leaders all we can offer is speculation based on what WE see. We see the tragedies, not the victories.
Lying about your situation is a time tested strategy. By bluffing your opponent into thinking you are still strong, you can occasionally force them to throw their hand...to quit. Expecting this you can assume that the candle burns brightest before it loses it's flame.....but then again we are taking about people's lives, not candles. So nothing that significant should be assumed.
We are fighting a war of attrition. While it's not as efficient as say...a nuclear holocaust. It's possible to have more favorable results. Trouble is these wars take alot of time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yes, this conflict will take a long time. I understand that. However, we have to look at the results and ask ourselves whether what we are currently doing is having an affect upon terrorism. Where are the victories? We've arrested a few terrorists, sure, but like a hydra more appear to take the places of those who are gone.
The tactics we are using don't seem to be working. Now I'll accept that the results may take a long time to come in. But at what stage do we say to ourselves "Ok, this really isn't working". And it's small comfort to the families of dead US soldiers or Iraqi policemen who are experiancing the effects of this conflict right now. When are we going to see results? If the answer is "20 or so years down the road" then I say we need some new strategies.
Why? Because it's only a matter of time before something big happens. Something that will make S-11 look like a picnic. It could be a smallpox outbreak in London, or a sarin gas shell in a Los Angeles subway station, or a nuclear bomb in Washington. That's why we need to start working out whether or not our current tactics are working.
If you pull out now, the terrorists win, but they won't stop the attack. They won't stop until your country (I'm a brit) is a smear.
If you carry on the course, they'll <i>still</i> continue. You'll never be able to hunt them all down. You may catch 18 of the 20 big guys behind an organisation, but as long as you don't catch all of them, they'll find others willing to move up the ranks. Woop-de-doo.
But since you're in Iraq, you might as well stay there and make it a better place. If you can...
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Nov 23 2003, 08:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Nov 23 2003, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *Well, I do see some connection. Offering visible other ways out of problems, such as actively seeking counsil from iraqi democratic infrastructure, negotiating fair and square, and withdrawing support from such States as Israel or undemocratic governments and supporting opposition groups. In other words, make them democrats by being democratic in stead of making them throw bombs by throwing bombs at them. ( to put it very bluntly).
Pretty simple. Kill all terrorists. Aha. Like, killing Osama Bin Laden? Like killing Saddam Hussein? Oo, that is soo very simple and you totally succeeded in doing that! Very simple indeed. Remove the power base? Has support for extremists grown or declined since the so-called "War on terror" started? Too easy mate.
**Did I say we should do nothing? No. ***Bush's war in Iraq costed about 87 billion, right? That is enough to launch an effective campaign against AIDS and malaria. Am I implying that that is more important than attacking "rogue states"? Yep. ***No, the analogy is faulty. Different problems have different solutions. I am not using fertilizer to do my homework. ****Taliban did support Al Quaeda, true. But I would not call it a government. Ok, Saddam did support palestian suicide bombers ( not really international terrorism). AFAIK, no evidence on Saudi Arabia or Syria. *****True, war has been more common in RECENT history. That is, since 1945. Wars sponsored by the US, wars fought by Russia and US-taught and supported groups in Afghanistan. Wars between Israel ( a new state always causes destabiolization) and various arab countries. The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship is that in monarchy, dictatorship is hereditary. Egypt, authoritarian, is befriended with the US. Kuwayt isnt all that democratic either. Israel is a democracy, sure. I am not saying that Iran is democratic, I am just pointing out that it is way more democratic than Saudi Arabia. ******Why do you think they will not work this time? *******Well, I didnt know the expression, I'm foreign <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. ********Is there a democratic regime in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. Did it create more terrorists than it killed? Yep. Is there any proof the current "stability" (lol) is maintained? Nope. So is it succesfull? Nope. Palestinians did take their cause abroud, especially in the 60's/ 70's. Hijacking airplanes and all. Anyway, why would international terror be easier to get rid of than local terror? ********** well, they do have a right to vote, had massive demonstrations. That's at least a bit democratic ( AND NO I DINT SAY IT WAS A DEMOCRACY) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As to the Iraqi democratic infrastructure... There is very little of one. It is being built. They do not even have a constitution. They are deciding what form their government will take... in democratic means.
Yeah... I can see how stopping all support for a democratic Israel and supporting "opposition groups" would be democratic... :-/ Bombs are not being "thrown" at the the civilians... Bombs have only been used against Iraqi military forces and terrorrists. It's called fighting a war.... While at the same time rebuilding a country.
I never said killing the terrorrists or Saddam or Osama would be easy. It'll be a pain in the rear. It will not happen immediately. It will not happen at the push of a button. It will take time. It will take perseverance. It will take a strong resolve. Dimplomacy will NOT work with them and all they desire is to destroy. So we should destroy them. Its a simple concept really... Implementation is never as simple as the concept.
So support for extremists has grown? How do you know this? Is it because of all these bombings? What type of proof is that? They send one or two people... LOTS of explosives... Make a big boom and you think their numbers are increasing? Stop making claims you cannot support. I cannot say that support has waned... But I do know that it is better for these terrorrists to go into Iraq and fight our soldiers than it is for them to focus on civilians... Whether in the US or not.
You may not have explicitly said do nothing... But being reactive in times like these is the same thing. Dimplomacy is not an option with these international terrorrists. So we have to choose. Should be be reactive or proactive militarily. In the long run being proactive would prove better with far fewer lives lost.
We've spent more than $87 billion actually. Also, that latest $87 billiion is for a number of things. Ongoing military and rebuilding efforst in Afghanistan... As well as military and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. You want to know the best thing about this bill? About $20 billion of it is not a loan. It is a grant. It is FREE money to be used for rebuilding Iraq. This money would do nothing to further efforts to rid ourselves of AIDS or malaria. Creating vaccines for such things takes years. Throwing money at it would not make it speed up. Its a matter of technology. On top of that... There's the matter of educating the entire African continent ( since education would help with the AIDS problem ). Not something that's easy to do. Its better to solve one problem before focusing on another. Terrorrists are the more immediate concern and easier to affect.
You STILL do not get the meaning behind the analogy. You should re-read what Scorpion and I have said about it. The analogy makes sense. It fits. It does not matter if one groups acts are more atrocious than the other. The specifics of solutions do not matter to the analogy. That is not the point and has no bearing on the analogy. The analogy is about intent. The intent to perform an evil dead. And solutions to stopping such actions from repeating. Appeasement and/or doing nothing are not options. Its amazing this is really in question still.
The Taliban was the major ruling authority within Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes it was the government. Still... Lets assume that the Taliban was not a government. If that is the case, then Afghanistan did not have a government. If that is the case, there should be no problems with the US going in and removing Al Quaeda and those that support it. As for Saddam... I have heard here and there of supposed ties between him and terrorrist organizations, nothing really conclusive yet; but I also remember something about him giving asylum to a known terrorrist. In the end... I'll reserve judgement, but I find it far more likely that Saddam did have ties than he did not.
The US taught and supported groups that were fighting against the Soviets. Not exactly a bad thing.
I wouldn't necessarily call a monarch a dictatorship. Although a monarchy could turn into a dictatorship rather easily, it is not the same, or as bad. Egypt is befriended by more than just he US, and for a number of reasons ( the canal and their peace treaty with Israel at the top of the list ).
You did say Iran was democratic. Iran is far from democratic. They tried to implement some democracy within Iran over the past 5 years.... I think part of the government was even elected by the people, but what the elected representatives wanted to do was not allowed because of the real ruling power within Iran. These clerics and then the top dog himself. They only let the elected officials do that which would not affect their power base. Not really a democracy.
Yeah... diplomacy and doing exactly what the terrorrists want will always work!!! </sarcasm>
Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate beasts. Afghanistan is far more democractic than Iraq is at the moment. This has a bit to do with their current government being established for longer. And yes... Its is democratic... And improving and still growing. Its not done yet... And won't be for a while. Iraq on the other hand is not ready for a truly democratic government. There is no way to effectively do anything resembling elections at this time.
More terrorrist bred? Proof! Just because there are more attacks is not proof. There is nothing saying that these attacks are more because of terrorrists than former elements of Saddam's regime. Its a mixture of both. We, the public, have no idea about how these forces are actually made up. There is also the bit about us actually being "in their backyard". Its far easier to attack US forces... Path of least resistance ( i.e. its easier to attack US forces in Iraq than US civilians on the mainland ). There actually is proof that stability is coming about. But once again it won't happen over night. It has not even been a year and people expect Iraq to be "tamed". Well, welcome to reality. There is stability being brought to Iraq, but its not easy and not fast. Successful? Yes, but not perfect. Find me something that is.
Who ever said combatting internationl terror would be easier than local terror? They both should be gotten rid of.
Iran wants to give the appearance of a democracy... But it is not. Its a show. A sham. Just like their following of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty over the past 2 - 3 decades. Massive demonstrations... The ones that get shut down once they get too "massive". Iran wants to say it is democratic just to have the eyes of other nations from focusing on them.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 24 2003, 04:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 24 2003, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bombs have only been used against Iraqi military forces and terrorrists. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Firstly, and I really dislike how this is brushed over here, that really dedpends on your definition of the word "used". you would be correct if the word Used specifically implied intent, in that case, no Bombs havent technically been used against civilians. However, this technicallity will not help to revive the 7900+ Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the very same bombs you say havent been "used" on them. [source: Iraqbodycount.org]. (well technically this figure includeds more methods of killing than just bombing, but a death is a death)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So support for extremists has grown? How do you know this? Is it because of all these bombings? What type of proof is that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are of course correct, this is no proof. The very nature of terrorist organisations means there can never really be any proof in this matter, similarly we can never prove nunmbers of terrorists are declining.
While there is no formal proof, it seems clear to me that of all the possible things a nation can do to foster hate and terrorism among the peoples of another nation, Invasion, occupation and killing of civilians <i> MUST </i> rank pretty highly.
are more terrorist being killed than are being created? i guess we'll never know.
back to the subject of analogies, sure go ahead and use them, they help demonstrate exactly what it is your talking about. But they dont prove points, especially when there are some discrepancies between the analogy and the reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More terrorrist bred? Proof! Just because there are more attacks is not proof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and on this point I would like to say, what does it matter about the number of terrorists in the world? a useless and subjective number! I would think the biggest factor should <i> surely </i> be <b>How many of these terrorists make an attack</b>. what is a terrorist who does not make an attack? nothing! someone who maybe thought about making an attack? that is nothing.
a terrorist MUST attack to be called a terrorist! and while technically you can probably find fault with my arguement, you must see the point! I dont care how many people think about making attacks, people can think how they like. what bothers me is how many people die from actual attacks. and as you said yourself... "...there are more attacks ..."
There are two forces at work in the Middle East with regards to bombings of U.S. and allied targets. Terrorists and dispersed Iraqi military/political forces. Just because their military dissolved does not mean they disbanded. The unseated regime is still actively attempting to take back the country. Eventually civilian support (or fear) for them will go away, or it won't.
Intelligence suggests they are still coordinated and a detatchment of former Iraqi soldiers is moving through Iran to stage a revolt in the Western provinces of Afghanistan in an attempt to create a stronghold there. We'll probably bomb them if they concentrate and that is why they aren't doing it. If they had not been convinced that a straight up offensive vs. the U.S. military is a futile tactic we would have seen more resistance.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 24 2003, 04:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 24 2003, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to the Iraqi democratic infrastructure... There is very little of one. It is being built. They do not even have a constitution. They are deciding what form their government will take... in democratic means.
Yeah... I can see how stopping all support for a democratic Israel and supporting "opposition groups" would be democratic... :-/ Bombs are not being "thrown" at the the civilians... Bombs have only been used against Iraqi military forces and terrorrists. It's called fighting a war.... While at the same time rebuilding a country.
I never said killing the terrorrists or Saddam or Osama would be easy. It'll be a pain in the rear. It will not happen immediately. It will not happen at the push of a button. It will take time. It will take perseverance. It will take a strong resolve. Dimplomacy will NOT work with them and all they desire is to destroy. So we should destroy them. Its a simple concept really... Implementation is never as simple as the concept.
So support for extremists has grown? How do you know this? Is it because of all these bombings? What type of proof is that? They send one or two people... LOTS of explosives... Make a big boom and you think their numbers are increasing? Stop making claims you cannot support. I cannot say that support has waned... But I do know that it is better for these terrorrists to go into Iraq and fight our soldiers than it is for them to focus on civilians... Whether in the US or not.
You may not have explicitly said do nothing... But being reactive in times like these is the same thing. Dimplomacy is not an option with these international terrorrists. So we have to choose. Should be be reactive or proactive militarily. In the long run being proactive would prove better with far fewer lives lost.
We've spent more than $87 billion actually. Also, that latest $87 billiion is for a number of things. Ongoing military and rebuilding efforst in Afghanistan... As well as military and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. You want to know the best thing about this bill? About $20 billion of it is not a loan. It is a grant. It is FREE money to be used for rebuilding Iraq. This money would do nothing to further efforts to rid ourselves of AIDS or malaria. Creating vaccines for such things takes years. Throwing money at it would not make it speed up. Its a matter of technology. On top of that... There's the matter of educating the entire African continent ( since education would help with the AIDS problem ). Not something that's easy to do. Its better to solve one problem before focusing on another. Terrorrists are the more immediate concern and easier to affect.
You STILL do not get the meaning behind the analogy. You should re-read what Scorpion and I have said about it. The analogy makes sense. It fits. It does not matter if one groups acts are more atrocious than the other. The specifics of solutions do not matter to the analogy. That is not the point and has no bearing on the analogy. The analogy is about intent. The intent to perform an evil deed. And solutions to stopping such actions from repeating. Appeasement and/or doing nothing are not options. Its amazing this is really in question still.
The Taliban was the major ruling authority within Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes it was the government. Still... Lets assume that the Taliban was not a government. If that is the case, then Afghanistan did not have a government. If that is the case, there should be no problems with the US going in and removing Al Quaeda and those that support it. As for Saddam... I have heard here and there of supposed ties between him and terrorrist organizations, nothing really conclusive yet; but I also remember something about him giving asylum to a known terrorrist. In the end... I'll reserve judgement, but I find it far more likely that Saddam did have ties than he did not.
The US taught and supported groups that were fighting against the Soviets. Not exactly a bad thing.
I wouldn't necessarily call a monarch a dictatorship. Although a monarchy could turn into a dictatorship rather easily, it is not the same, or as bad. Egypt is befriended by more than just he US, and for a number of reasons ( the canal and their peace treaty with Israel at the top of the list ).
You did say Iran was democratic. Iran is far from democratic. They tried to implement some democracy within Iran over the past 5 years.... I think part of the government was even elected by the people, but what the elected representatives wanted to do was not allowed because of the real ruling power within Iran. These clerics and then the top dog himself. They only let the elected officials do that which would not affect their power base. Not really a democracy.
Yeah... diplomacy and doing exactly what the terrorrists want will always work!!! </sarcasm>
Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate beasts. Afghanistan is far more democractic than Iraq is at the moment. This has a bit to do with their current government being established for longer. And yes... Its is democratic... And improving and still growing. Its not done yet... And won't be for a while. Iraq on the other hand is not ready for a truly democratic government. There is no way to effectively do anything resembling elections at this time.
More terrorrist bred? Proof! Just because there are more attacks is not proof. There is nothing saying that these attacks are more because of terrorrists than former elements of Saddam's regime. Its a mixture of both. We, the public, have no idea about how these forces are actually made up. There is also the bit about us actually being "in their backyard". Its far easier to attack US forces... Path of least resistance ( i.e. its easier to attack US forces in Iraq than US civilians on the mainland ). There actually is proof that stability is coming about. But once again it won't happen over night. It has not even been a year and people expect Iraq to be "tamed". Well, welcome to reality. There is stability being brought to Iraq, but its not easy and not fast. Successful? Yes, but not perfect. Find me something that is.
Who ever said combatting internationl terror would be easier than local terror? They both should be gotten rid of.
Iran wants to give the appearance of a democracy... But it is not. Its a show. A sham. Just like their following of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty over the past 2 - 3 decades. Massive demonstrations... The ones that get shut down once they get too "massive". Iran wants to say it is democratic just to have the eyes of other nations from focusing on them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The iraqis have no way to participate in decision making on local level and are being structurally ignored.
Israel is and has been violating tons of UN resolutions. Why dont you see supporting opposition groups in tyrannies is democratic? Bombs are not thrown at civilians, but that's not my point. My point is that you bring democracy to Iraq ( or at least pretend to try to) by war, not by democracy.
So, ok, you kill Osama Bin Laden. How many independent cells will continue? A wild guess: All. GJ!.
After half an hour of googling, I finally found some evidence on growing support for terrorism. Yay! <a href='http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/jun03/threat3.html' target='_blank'>http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/jun03/threat3.html</a>
No, the question is not whether we should act reactively or proactively, the question is how to stop terrorism in the future. Decades of Israeli politics have shown us that simply using force does not work. If we want to win this war in the long run, we will have to fight poverty and inequality.
Sure, AIDS and Malaria are not easy to fight, and will take lots of years. But since millions of people die from it every year, we better start now. Why do you think extra money would not speed up research? Why do you think that clearing out swamps is a matter of technology? It can be done right now, if only there was enough money. These diseases have killed more people within the US ( dont even start about outside the US) and continue to do so every day. Immediate concern.
It is not amazing. I am sure that Hitler would not have gained so much support if the Versailles Treaty would have been less harsh. Not exactly appeasement, but then again, I'm not proposing it.
No, it is not ok for the US to invade a country without it's consent (or that of the UN). The problem, I think, is that you confuse the results from the war on terror ( with negative results sofar) with wars against local regimes ( with mixed results). About Saddam: Well, he might have supported palestinian terrorism, but no proof of bonds between him and Al Quaeda or another organisation have been discovered (AFAIK)
The US supported the Mujahideen (spelling?) in Afghanistan. One of them: our beloved bin. Not a bad thing, you say <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Then, tell me the difference between a monarchy and a hereditary dictatorship. Befriending countries because they have a canal is kind of ehm.. realistic. Egypt is not democratic, it's authoritarian. So, if you want to bring democracyand take down other forms of government, don't be friends with non-democracies ( even if theyhave a canal ^_^)
I'm not saying it is a democracy. I said it was more democratic than other countries. Yes, they do have regular elections, but new laws have to be passed through a counsil of religious leaders). Not very democratic, but democracy is a gliding scale: not every country is a pure democracy ( like Singapore, which does not have free press but does have elections)
Afghanistanb is not (purley) democratic. I don't remember elections being held there. Plus, I'm quite pessimistic about the presidential system the Afghan constitutional draft is proposing, especially since the bounds within tribes are strong and the largest tribe is that from which the Taliban sprouted.
If I define terrorists as people commiting terrorist acts, and most terrorists acts are suicide bombings, the conclusion must be that there are more new terrorists. Terrorism is not only on the rise in Iraq, but in the whole Middle East ( bombings on embassies and synagogues). Why do you think the bringing of stability is, or will be successful?
Sure, but, referring to the Israeli case, fact is that pure violence DOES NOT WORK
Once again, I did not say Iran is a democracy, it is just far more democratic. Purely authoritarian regimes dont hold elections, or allow non-state-supported demonstrations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The benefit from this war is not a problem, the problem is what could have happened if it wasnt for the war on Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Are you saying things would have gotten much worse if we hadn't invaded Iraq and **** off just about the entire Middle East?
Well, when you have people killing themselves just to kill you I don't think you can make them any angrier. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, when you have people killing themselves just to kill you I don't think you can make them any angrier. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's true. However, what you can do is make other people angry so that they'll join the people trying to kill you. Not a wize move. Also, you can try and identify why these people hate you, and attack the problem at the source.
Comments
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7890128%255E401,00.html' target='_blank'>Al Qaeda behind Turkish bombings</a>
It's been over two years since the events of September 11 and the beginning of the "War of Terror". Since S-11, two invasions, of Afghanistan and Iraq, have been carried out, and hundreds of terrorist suspects arrested in various countries across the world.
Yet looking back over the past months, one must start to question whether we're getting anywhere. The Italian police barracks in Iraq demolished, the UN Iraq headquaters bombed, Saudi Arabia rocked by bombing attacks, Turkish synagogues attacked, US soldiers suffering daily attacks in Iraq. Every day we look at the news and see some other attack, be it a sniper in Baghdad or a car bomb in Riyadh.
So we ask ourselves. We've spend billions fighting this war. We've invaded two nations. Arrested hundreds. But for what?
Certainly the terrorist threat has not diminished. Just because there hasn't been another attack on the scale of S-11 doesn't mean it isn't possible, and the attacks that have continued to occur seem to indicate that there remain commited individuals willing and able to harm the US and it's allies.
Certainly Al Quaeda isn't gone, and they remain a potent threat. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Even if he is dead though, others have taken over the organisation.
Your thoughts please.
Edited mistake. Thanks Urza <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The war on terror is a war on ideas, it can never be won. Like the war on drugs, but with an even bigger budget.
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7927107%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...7%255E2,00.html</a>
While invading other countries to dispose of a fanatical few is bad for public images, acting on a reactionary basis is bad for the home country.
If nations simply give in....will terrorists become less fanatical? If you hand a bank robber money and allow him to escape unharmed...will he stop robbing banks? Did the Europeans' policy of appeasement actually stop Hitler from invading other countries? Are fanatics reasonable?
It is assured that if nothing is done, many people will suffer. But it is also assured if something is done, brave men and women will die fighting.
Naturally I assume this of anyone:
1. We know we should do something.
2. We know we are not safe.
3. We know from history that neither isolationism nor appeasement work. Two examples: Europe and Hitler, the Romans and Attila the Hun.
4. We want peace and freedom.
5. We do not want to get our hands dirty.
So basically, what do we do about it?
So far the biggest thorn in the world's collective side has been terrorists fed cash, troops, and weapons from middle eastern countries. Enter Afganistan, enter Iraq, enter Saudi Arabia, enter Syria, enter Iran...ect.
Some of these countries have been less than willing to help. Some appear to help, but have a lot of dirty laundry hidden in the next room. All are going to react unfavorably to any foreign presence, especially that of the United States. A very intelligent person once said "They are quarrels with borders." They bicker and war amongst themselves constantly. Killing is part of their culture. Oppression is the norm, it's the climate people live in. Basically they are a big family of brothers, very rowdy brothers. They won't think a second before breaking one-another's arms...but they will unite in hatred against anything unfamiliar.
If we go in Arabs are gonna hate us more and the fanatics will attack viciously in defense of their beautifully orchestrated climate of oppression. If we back down, the general public will respect us less and give the fanatics more justification to "cleanse" the whimpering "infidels."
Sometimes you just have to bite the proverbial "bullet." It's gonna hurt images for a while, but it could very well help in the long run.
It's like telling the truth to your parents when you are about seven years old and just broke mom's favorite lamp. The whipping hurts like heck, but your parents will treat you better in the long run. Why? Because you didn't lie, you stood your ground, and they respect that in you.
If I had the chance I would be in the military. I love my country, but I am not physically capable of performing a soldier's duty. I have many friends in the military, some of my greatest buddies are actually in the middle east right now. I watch the news every day and I get frightened when I hear of another dying. I pray whenever I have the chance that they will be all right and come back safe so we can talk and drink and shoot pool.
I hate it that my best pals are in danger without me. I wish I was in there with them, but nope I just can't. So I have to sit here and listen to people capable of being military material talk about them as if they are unwilling to bear the burdon. As if they are suddenly going to hate the country if they get hurt, as if their families will fly into a blind rage and become terrorists themselves if anything happens to them. The people who comment on their lives rarely give them the credit they deserve.
They are part of a plot to try and save as many good people as possible, but I agree that even one death looks very bad. If push comes to shove, there is another way of wiping out Terrorist support in the middle east. Up to a point it would involve far fewer allied casualties. But the world only needs so many glass incased sand dunes. ....At least the resulting death toll will be viewed as a statistic by our media.
Terrorists are not bankrobbers. Bankrobbers do not blow themselve up. They recruit new terrorists from moderate thinking people. Hitler had a high degree of power over the people, terrorists get their power from the people, and can do nothing without them.
[QUOTE]It is assured that if nothing is done, many people will suffer. But it is also assured if something is done, brave men and women will die fighting.[/QUOTE]
Ehm, sure. What measures do you propose?
[QUOTE]Naturally I assume this of anyone:
1. We know we should do something.
2. We know we are not safe.
3. We know from history that neither isolationism nor appeasement work. Two examples: Europe and Hitler, the Romans and Attila the Hun.
4. We want peace and freedom.
5. We do not want to get our hands dirty.[/QUOTE]
1. But what?
2. Safe is a relative word. Ten- to hundred thousand times more people die from malaria, AIDs, or other diseases than from international terrorism.
3. International terrorism can not be compared to both
4. Eh, sure
5. True
[QUOTE]So basically, what do we do about it?
So far the biggest thorn in the world's collective side has been terrorists fed cash, troops, and weapons from middle eastern countries. Enter Afganistan, enter Iraq, enter Saudi Arabia, enter Syria, enter Iran...ect.[/QUOTE]
No. Terrorism is not actively supported by any of those countries. Some groups within those countries might support it, but that is something else and not contained to a region. (remember the phrase international terror?)
[QUOTE]Some of these countries have been less than willing to help. Some appear to help, but have a lot of dirty laundry hidden in the next room. All are going to react unfavorably to any foreign presence, especially that of the United States. A very intelligent person once said "They are quarrels with borders." They bicker and war amongst themselves constantly. Killing is part of their culture. Oppression is the norm, it's the climate people live in. Basically they are a big family of brothers, very rowdy brothers. They won't think a second before breaking one-another's arms...but they will unite in hatred against anything unfamiliar. [/QUOTE]
Of course they would react unfavourably to foreign presence, it is an assault on their sovereignty. War is not that common in the Middle East. Why is killing more a part of arabic or persian culture than it is part of american culture? If I remember correctly, capital punishment is quite common. I see a lot of opinion and no facts whatsoever. Yea, there are a lot of dictatorships in the Middle East, most of them sponsored by the US. A more democratic regime, that of Iran, is somehow considered especially despotic, for no apparent reason.
[QUOTE]If we go in Arabs are gonna hate us more and the fanatics will attack viciously in defense of their beautifully orchestrated climate of oppression. If we back down, the general public will respect us less and give the fanatics more justification to "cleanse" the whimpering "infidels."
Eh, no. And yes, there are other ways than war.
[QUOTE]Sometimes you just have to bite the proverbial "bullet." It's gonna hurt images for a while, but it could very well help in the long run. [/QUOTE]
So, why would you bite the bullet in this case?
[QUOTE]It's like telling the truth to your parents when you are about seven years old and just broke mom's favorite lamp. The whipping hurts like heck, but your parents will treat you better in the long run. Why? Because you didn't lie, you stood your ground, and they respect that in you. [/QUOTE]
So, why would you bite the bullet in this case?
[QUOTE]If I had the chance I would be in the military. I love my country, but I am not physically capable of performing a soldier's duty. I have many friends in the military, some of my greatest buddies are actually in the middle east right now. I watch the news every day and I get frightened when I hear of another dying. I pray whenever I have the chance that they will be all right and come back safe so we can talk and drink and shoot pool.[/QUOTE]
Well, I hope you will
[QUOTE]I hate it that my best pals are in danger without me. I wish I was in there with them, but nope I just can't. So I have to sit here and listen to people capable of being military material talk about them as if they are unwilling to bear the burdon. As if they are suddenly going to hate the country if they get hurt, as if their families will fly into a blind rage and become terrorists themselves if anything happens to them. The people who comment on their lives rarely give them the credit they deserve. [/QUOTE]
Ok, giving your life for something you believe in is noble, but that does not make the thing you believe in itself noble.
[QUOTE]They are part of a plot to try and save as many good people as possible, but I agree that even one death looks very bad. If push comes to shove, there is another way of wiping out Terrorist support in the middle east. Up to a point it would involve far fewer allied casualties. But the world only needs so many glass incased sand dunes. ....At least the resulting death toll will be viewed as a statistic by our media.[/QUOTE]
And, why is this the best option? Have there been good results from acting like this against terror, in, let's say, Israel? Nope.
Ehm, sure. What measures do you propose?
1. But what?
2. Safe is a relative word. Ten- to hundred thousand times more people die from malaria, AIDs, or other diseases than from international terrorism.
3. International terrorism can not be compared to both
4. Eh, sure
5. True
No. Terrorism is not actively supported by any of those countries. Some groups within those countries might support it, but that is something else and not contained to a region. (remember the phrase international terror?)
Of course they would react unfavourably to foreign presence, it is an assault on their sovereignty. War is not that common in the Middle East. Why is killing more a part of arabic or persian culture than it is part of american culture? If I remember correctly, capital punishment is quite common. I see a lot of opinion and no facts whatsoever. Yea, there are a lot of dictatorships in the Middle East, most of them sponsored by the US. A more democratic regime, that of Iran, is somehow considered especially despotic, for no apparent reason.
Eh, no. And yes, there are other ways than war.
So, why would you bite the bullet in this case?
And, why is this the best option? Have there been good results from acting like this against terror, in, let's say, Israel? Nope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good job stating the obvious... Terrorrists are not bank robbers... Never would've guessed that. Then again, you missed the whole point. To spell it out for you: Giving bank robbers money will not make them stop robbing banks... Only encourage them to do it more. Giving in to terrorrist demands will not make them stop demanding... Only encourage them to do it more. See the connection?
He's proprosing that something be done other than nothing. Pretty simple. Specifics? Kill the terrorrists. Remove their power base. blah blah blah. So many things to do... Nothing will do it alone.... And it will not happen over night.
1. Again... Something > Nothing
2. Safe is not a realtive term. We are talking about terrorrist actions here. Not malaria. Not AIDS. Just because people die from diseases does not mean we should ignore terrorrists until we cure them. And yes, that is what you implied.
3. Again... It is not a comparison but an analogy that you seem not able to comprehend. Again... The examples work well.
4. He's right. Your comment was unneccessarily demeaning.
5. Agree
Once again you are wrong. Terrorrism has been actively supported by Afghanistan ( well, until the US threw out the Taliban ). And I could've sworn that Saddam was known to give money to the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers, not to mention asylum to known terrorrists. Saudi Arabia is a big mess and very few know their real purpose in any of this. Syria... ha ha.
International terrorrism means that terrorrist acts are committed across the globe by a group. It just so happens that one of these groups is primarily located within the Mid East ( ya know... I think that's considered a "region" ).
Assault on their sovereignty? Have we stepped foot in Syria? Iran? They have both been less than willing for reasons that have nothing to do with sovereignty. War has been more common in the Middle East than say.... In many other parts of the world in recent history. How many wars with Israel? How many wars between Iraq and Iran? How many war between Pakistan and India? How many wars in Iraq? Killing, however, is just a part of human culture. I dont necessarily agree with the statement that its part of their culture. Lots of US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East? Where? Saudi Arabia? Possibly. But not a dictatorship... Its a monarcy. Syria? Yeah right. Iran? HA! Iraq? Not any more... And not for some time. Israel? Oh yeah, that's a democracy. Lebanon? Jordan? US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East are really non-existent. Iran democratic? Are you trying to redefine a word again ( e.g. international terror )? Iran is far from democratic. I had to laugh when I read that one.
There are always other ways than war... But unfortunately they dont always work or are extremely inpractical.
Biting the bullet in this case means going to war regardless of what the international community in all its "wisdom" has to say. Was it that mistifying?
Good results from combatting terrorrism dead one... Hrmm.... Lets see. Iraq is free. Afghanistan is free. Either way... It is far better than just sitting back and letting terrorrism happen. Diplomacy will not end terrorrism. Thinking that will only bring more terrorrists acts. Israel is never really the recipient of international terrorrism though. What they face is based locally. And the groups that continue to attack Israel never really bother with spreading their evil to other parts of the world ( not like they have to anyways... others seem to do it just fine ).
I just have to laugh again tho... Iran... a democracy... LOL
there are several reasons why this is not a good analogy.
1) bank robbers are not activly engaging in a campainge against a nation resposible for more deaths worldwide than I think you care to imagine.
2) there is a differance between 'ignoring' and 'encouraging'. giving money to robbers is not the same as not arresting them.
3) in fact point two bears closer examination because in the context of the war on terror you have actually switched the 'encourage' and 'ignore'; to ignore terrorists is less of an ensentive for future terrorists to attack than it is to bomb their homelands [eg. encourage them].
not only did you spit this back in Urzas face, you also pointed out how discourtious <i>he</i> was.
but thats besides the point.
the way I see it. now.
1) Have the terrorists stopped their attacks since the Coalition invaded Iraq?
the answer seems to be no, there have been more and more attacks.
2) Is it then safe to say that the war on terror isnt working? ie. isnt stopping terrorism?
well there are really two ways to see this. you can either say,
"attacking other nations as a means to end terrorism isnt really a very good idea, more and more terrorist attacks are occuring, we should stop provoking more attacks."
or you could say
"we just arent hitting them hard enough, lets invade some more places and see if we cant kill terrorism for good"
in my opinion, the first way of seeing things is entirely more sane than the second.
1) Have the terrorists stopped their attacks since the Coalition invaded Iraq?
2) Is it then safe to say that the war on terror isnt working? ie. isnt stopping terrorism?
That's what is trying to be addressed here. Looking at the news, we find that <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html' target='_blank'>there has been another attack</a>. What's worse is that these attacks have been getting progressively worse and worse. And they show no sign of slackening off. If anything, the people behind these actions seem to gaining in strength and support.
2) Is it then safe to say that the war on terror isnt working? ie. isnt stopping terrorism?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me get this over with, cause I respect ya Ryo...though I may not agree at all.
1: No, simply attempting to remove a possible stronghold they can run to for their various needs will not eliminate the problem. It will eliminate a singular stronghold.
This is a war without defined borders. You cannot walk into it thinking one offensive action will do anything more than enrage the opponent. Then again, it might do something. There's just too much up for grabs on the issue.
2: No, again. Since we are unable to see things through the eyes of terrorists and their leaders all we can offer is speculation based on what WE see. We see the tragedies, not the victories.
Lying about your situation is a time tested strategy. By bluffing your opponent into thinking you are still strong, you can occasionally force them to throw their hand...to quit. Expecting this you can assume that the candle burns brightest before it loses it's flame.....but then again we are taking about people's lives, not candles. So nothing that significant should be assumed.
We are fighting a war of attrition. While it's not as efficient as say...a nuclear holocaust. It's possible to have more favorable results. Trouble is these wars take alot of time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1) bank robbers are not activly engaging in a campainge against a nation resposible for more deaths worldwide than I think you care to imagine.
2) there is a differance between 'ignoring' and 'encouraging'. giving money to robbers is not the same as not arresting them.
3) in fact point two bears closer examination because in the context of the war on terror you have actually switched the 'encourage' and 'ignore'; to ignore terrorists is less of an ensentive for future terrorists to attack than it is to bomb their homelands [eg. encourage them].
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
About the bank robbers.
1: They are used as an analogy. It does not matter what their purpose is. It does matter what they do when they get their way.
By the way.... Who says there aren't some bank robbers with such a cause?
There will never be a shortage of blame for any country. 'cept maybe Denmark... Can't remember anything they've done.
2: Hah! Your reasoning is flawed. A bank robber, if ignored, <b>encourages himself</b> by taking the money anyway. That's what he's there to do, rob a bank. If you don't stop him...he's gonna do it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Eventually he might start robbing larger banks...I mean...no one is stopping him and he's making a killing.
Terrorists are not entirely different but normally their aims are. They want to harm a group of people so much that their objective is realised and put into practice. If they are not stopped, terrible things happen. It's only a matter of time before there is a public outcry to give in.
If their smaller goals are met there is a very good chance they will simply get larger goals. If some had their way, they'd line up everyone they "didn't like" reguardless of the offense and if they did not convert to their fanatical beliefs they'd shoot them one-by-one.
3: Personally, I think the United States of America would do better to simply leave the middle east alone. Shocking huh? But when I say leave alone, I mean leave alone. (Hurry the heck up fuel cell researchers.)
This is a war without defined borders. You cannot walk into it thinking one offensive action will do anything more than enrage the opponent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, does it not follow that the war can never be won?
consider, even if America were to invade and 'stabalise' every country known to, or suspected of giving aid to terrorists. To bomb and destroy every building ever used by a terrorist. To kill every single terrorist on the face of the earth, using the methods which have been demonstrated in Afganistan and Iraq. That the sheer amount of destrucion, death (this counts not only families of terrorists, but families of 'colateral damage' eg. civilians) and global unrest, would be enough to sustain, if not increase the number of terrorists seeking to bring about the fall of the US (and allies).
but then, perhaps this is the plan...
I wouldnt mind an endless war, apart from lots and lots of people tend to die... shame really i guess.
consider, even if America were to invade and 'stabalise' every country known to, or suspected of giving aid to terrorists. To bomb and destroy every building ever used by a terrorist. To kill every single terrorist on the face of the earth, using the methods which have been demonstrated in Afganistan and Iraq. That the sheer amount of destrucion, death (this counts not only families of terrorists, but families of 'colateral damage' eg. civilians) and global unrest, would be enough to sustain, if not increase the number of terrorists seeking to bring about the fall of the US (and allies).
but then, perhaps this is the plan...
I wouldnt mind an endless war, apart from lots and lots of people tend to die... shame really i guess. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considered, but are you suggesting we bow to their demands, wait for years until the UN decides to get off it's collective **** and enforce it's resolutions before holocaustesque tragedies like Sarajevo, or perhaps start nuclear armageddon? What do you suggest we do? It might not be pretty but at least this is something.
Actually a war like this can still be won. Think of it like this:
A woman who would have been a victim of a mugging case took the initiative and cut one of the mugger's fingers off.
He's angry and in a bit of pain. He is probably going to seek to strike back. It's no longer business as usual, it's personal.
Okay, say she systematically cuts fingers off one by one. Eventually, maybe even after the second finger, he's gonna stop trying and start running.
It's just a matter of how much they can take. If they keep striking at countries near the middle east, all the better. More people will start to hate them, see us doing something about them, and possibly help us...if not, just lend no aid to the terrorists. It's us commiting terrorism on the terrorists...while at the same time giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
It's not gonna be pretty, there's gonna be casualties, it's gonna take a while, and there is no guarantee that the rest of the world is going to help at all. Fun stuff really. Fun stuff.
He's proprosing that something be done other than nothing. Pretty simple. Specifics? Kill the terrorrists. Remove their power base. blah blah blah. So many things to do... Nothing will do it alone.... And it will not happen over night.*
1. Again... Something > Nothing**
2. Safe is not a realtive term. We are talking about terrorrist actions here. Not malaria. Not AIDS. Just because people die from diseases does not mean we should ignore terrorrists until we cure them. And yes, that is what you implied.***
3. Again... It is not a comparison but an analogy that you seem not able to comprehend. Again... The examples work well.***
4. He's right. Your comment was unneccessarily demeaning.
5. Agree
Once again you are wrong. Terrorrism has been actively supported by Afghanistan ( well, until the US threw out the Taliban ). And I could've sworn that Saddam was known to give money to the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers, not to mention asylum to known terrorrists. Saudi Arabia is a big mess and very few know their real purpose in any of this. Syria... ha ha.****
International terrorrism means that terrorrist acts are committed across the globe by a group. It just so happens that one of these groups is primarily located within the Mid East ( ya know... I think that's considered a "region" ).*****
No, International terrorism means that the actors are spread around the globe, and not based in one particular region.
Assault on their sovereignty? Have we stepped foot in Syria? Iran? They have both been less than willing for reasons that have nothing to do with sovereignty. War has been more common in the Middle East than say.... In many other parts of the world in recent history. How many wars with Israel? How many wars between Iraq and Iran? How many war between Pakistan and India? How many wars in Iraq? Killing, however, is just a part of human culture. I dont necessarily agree with the statement that its part of their culture. Lots of US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East? Where? Saudi Arabia? Possibly. But not a dictatorship... Its a monarcy. Syria? Yeah right. Iran? HA! Iraq? Not any more... And not for some time. Israel? Oh yeah, that's a democracy. Lebanon? Jordan? US sponsored dictatorships in the Middle East are really non-existent. Iran democratic? Are you trying to redefine a word again ( e.g. international terror )? Iran is far from democratic. I had to laugh when I read that one.*****
There are always other ways than war... But unfortunately they dont always work or are extremely inpractical.******
Biting the bullet in this case means going to war regardless of what the international community in all its "wisdom" has to say. Was it that mistifying?*******
Good results from combatting terrorrism dead one... Hrmm.... Lets see. Iraq is free. Afghanistan is free. Either way... It is far better than just sitting back and letting terrorrism happen. Diplomacy will not end terrorrism. Thinking that will only bring more terrorrists acts. Israel is never really the recipient of international terrorrism though. What they face is based locally. And the groups that continue to attack Israel never really bother with spreading their evil to other parts of the world ( not like they have to anyways... others seem to do it just fine ).*********
I just have to laugh again tho... Iran... a democracy... LOL********** <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, thanks for your posts, melatonin <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
*Well, I do see some connection. Offering visible other ways out of problems, such as actively seeking counsil from iraqi democratic infrastructure, negotiating fair and square, and withdrawing support from such States as Israel or undemocratic governments and supporting opposition groups. In other words, make them democrats by being democratic in stead of making them throw bombs by throwing bombs at them. ( to put it very bluntly).
Pretty simple. Kill all terrorists. Aha. Like, killing Osama Bin Laden? Like killing Saddam Hussein? Oo, that is soo very simple and you totally succeeded in doing that! Very simple indeed. Remove the power base? Has support for extremists grown or declined since the so-called "War on terror" started? Too easy mate.
**Did I say we should do nothing? No.
***Bush's war in Iraq costed about 87 billion, right? That is enough to launch an effective campaign against AIDS and malaria. Am I implying that that is more important than attacking "rogue states"? Yep.
***No, the analogy is faulty. Different problems have different solutions. I am not using fertilizer to do my homework.
****Taliban did support Al Quaeda, true. But I would not call it a government. Ok, Saddam did support palestian suicide bombers ( not really international terrorism). AFAIK, no evidence on Saudi Arabia or Syria.
*****True, war has been more common in RECENT history. That is, since 1945. Wars sponsored by the US, wars fought by Russia and US-taught and supported groups in Afghanistan. Wars between Israel ( a new state always causes destabiolization) and various arab countries.
The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship is that in monarchy, dictatorship is hereditary. Egypt, authoritarian, is befriended with the US. Kuwayt isnt all that democratic either. Israel is a democracy, sure.
I am not saying that Iran is democratic, I am just pointing out that it is way more democratic than Saudi Arabia.
******Why do you think they will not work this time?
*******Well, I didnt know the expression, I'm foreign <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
********Is there a democratic regime in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. Did it create more terrorists than it killed? Yep. Is there any proof the current "stability" (lol) is maintained? Nope. So is it succesfull? Nope. Palestinians did take their cause abroud, especially in the 60's/ 70's. Hijacking airplanes and all. Anyway, why would international terror be easier to get rid of than local terror?
********** well, they do have a right to vote, had massive demonstrations. That's at least a bit democratic ( AND NO I DINT SAY IT WAS A DEMOCRACY)
**Ever heard of the Hydra? You cut one head of, two grow anew.
This is a war without defined borders. You cannot walk into it thinking one offensive action will do anything more than enrage the opponent. Then again, it might do something. There's just too much up for grabs on the issue.
2: No, again. Since we are unable to see things through the eyes of terrorists and their leaders all we can offer is speculation based on what WE see. We see the tragedies, not the victories.
Lying about your situation is a time tested strategy. By bluffing your opponent into thinking you are still strong, you can occasionally force them to throw their hand...to quit. Expecting this you can assume that the candle burns brightest before it loses it's flame.....but then again we are taking about people's lives, not candles. So nothing that significant should be assumed.
We are fighting a war of attrition. While it's not as efficient as say...a nuclear holocaust. It's possible to have more favorable results. Trouble is these wars take alot of time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yes, this conflict will take a long time. I understand that. However, we have to look at the results and ask ourselves whether what we are currently doing is having an affect upon terrorism. Where are the victories? We've arrested a few terrorists, sure, but like a hydra more appear to take the places of those who are gone.
The tactics we are using don't seem to be working. Now I'll accept that the results may take a long time to come in. But at what stage do we say to ourselves "Ok, this really isn't working". And it's small comfort to the families of dead US soldiers or Iraqi policemen who are experiancing the effects of this conflict right now. When are we going to see results? If the answer is "20 or so years down the road" then I say we need some new strategies.
Why? Because it's only a matter of time before something big happens. Something that will make S-11 look like a picnic. It could be a smallpox outbreak in London, or a sarin gas shell in a Los Angeles subway station, or a nuclear bomb in Washington. That's why we need to start working out whether or not our current tactics are working.
If you pull out now, the terrorists win, but they won't stop the attack. They won't stop until your country (I'm a brit) is a smear.
If you carry on the course, they'll <i>still</i> continue. You'll never be able to hunt them all down. You may catch 18 of the 20 big guys behind an organisation, but as long as you don't catch all of them, they'll find others willing to move up the ranks. Woop-de-doo.
But since you're in Iraq, you might as well stay there and make it a better place. If you can...
Pretty simple. Kill all terrorists. Aha. Like, killing Osama Bin Laden? Like killing Saddam Hussein? Oo, that is soo very simple and you totally succeeded in doing that! Very simple indeed. Remove the power base? Has support for extremists grown or declined since the so-called "War on terror" started? Too easy mate.
**Did I say we should do nothing? No.
***Bush's war in Iraq costed about 87 billion, right? That is enough to launch an effective campaign against AIDS and malaria. Am I implying that that is more important than attacking "rogue states"? Yep.
***No, the analogy is faulty. Different problems have different solutions. I am not using fertilizer to do my homework.
****Taliban did support Al Quaeda, true. But I would not call it a government. Ok, Saddam did support palestian suicide bombers ( not really international terrorism). AFAIK, no evidence on Saudi Arabia or Syria.
*****True, war has been more common in RECENT history. That is, since 1945. Wars sponsored by the US, wars fought by Russia and US-taught and supported groups in Afghanistan. Wars between Israel ( a new state always causes destabiolization) and various arab countries.
The difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship is that in monarchy, dictatorship is hereditary. Egypt, authoritarian, is befriended with the US. Kuwayt isnt all that democratic either. Israel is a democracy, sure.
I am not saying that Iran is democratic, I am just pointing out that it is way more democratic than Saudi Arabia.
******Why do you think they will not work this time?
*******Well, I didnt know the expression, I'm foreign <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
********Is there a democratic regime in Iraq or Afghanistan? Nope. Did it create more terrorists than it killed? Yep. Is there any proof the current "stability" (lol) is maintained? Nope. So is it succesfull? Nope. Palestinians did take their cause abroud, especially in the 60's/ 70's. Hijacking airplanes and all. Anyway, why would international terror be easier to get rid of than local terror?
********** well, they do have a right to vote, had massive demonstrations. That's at least a bit democratic ( AND NO I DINT SAY IT WAS A DEMOCRACY) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As to the Iraqi democratic infrastructure... There is very little of one. It is being built. They do not even have a constitution. They are deciding what form their government will take... in democratic means.
Yeah... I can see how stopping all support for a democratic Israel and supporting "opposition groups" would be democratic... :-/ Bombs are not being "thrown" at the the civilians... Bombs have only been used against Iraqi military forces and terrorrists. It's called fighting a war.... While at the same time rebuilding a country.
I never said killing the terrorrists or Saddam or Osama would be easy. It'll be a pain in the rear. It will not happen immediately. It will not happen at the push of a button. It will take time. It will take perseverance. It will take a strong resolve. Dimplomacy will NOT work with them and all they desire is to destroy. So we should destroy them. Its a simple concept really... Implementation is never as simple as the concept.
So support for extremists has grown? How do you know this? Is it because of all these bombings? What type of proof is that? They send one or two people... LOTS of explosives... Make a big boom and you think their numbers are increasing? Stop making claims you cannot support. I cannot say that support has waned... But I do know that it is better for these terrorrists to go into Iraq and fight our soldiers than it is for them to focus on civilians... Whether in the US or not.
You may not have explicitly said do nothing... But being reactive in times like these is the same thing. Dimplomacy is not an option with these international terrorrists. So we have to choose. Should be be reactive or proactive militarily. In the long run being proactive would prove better with far fewer lives lost.
We've spent more than $87 billion actually. Also, that latest $87 billiion is for a number of things. Ongoing military and rebuilding efforst in Afghanistan... As well as military and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. You want to know the best thing about this bill? About $20 billion of it is not a loan. It is a grant. It is FREE money to be used for rebuilding Iraq. This money would do nothing to further efforts to rid ourselves of AIDS or malaria. Creating vaccines for such things takes years. Throwing money at it would not make it speed up. Its a matter of technology. On top of that... There's the matter of educating the entire African continent ( since education would help with the AIDS problem ). Not something that's easy to do. Its better to solve one problem before focusing on another. Terrorrists are the more immediate concern and easier to affect.
You STILL do not get the meaning behind the analogy. You should re-read what Scorpion and I have said about it. The analogy makes sense. It fits. It does not matter if one groups acts are more atrocious than the other. The specifics of solutions do not matter to the analogy. That is not the point and has no bearing on the analogy. The analogy is about intent. The intent to perform an evil dead. And solutions to stopping such actions from repeating. Appeasement and/or doing nothing are not options. Its amazing this is really in question still.
The Taliban was the major ruling authority within Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes it was the government. Still... Lets assume that the Taliban was not a government. If that is the case, then Afghanistan did not have a government. If that is the case, there should be no problems with the US going in and removing Al Quaeda and those that support it. As for Saddam... I have heard here and there of supposed ties between him and terrorrist organizations, nothing really conclusive yet; but I also remember something about him giving asylum to a known terrorrist. In the end... I'll reserve judgement, but I find it far more likely that Saddam did have ties than he did not.
The US taught and supported groups that were fighting against the Soviets. Not exactly a bad thing.
I wouldn't necessarily call a monarch a dictatorship. Although a monarchy could turn into a dictatorship rather easily, it is not the same, or as bad. Egypt is befriended by more than just he US, and for a number of reasons ( the canal and their peace treaty with Israel at the top of the list ).
You did say Iran was democratic. Iran is far from democratic. They tried to implement some democracy within Iran over the past 5 years.... I think part of the government was even elected by the people, but what the elected representatives wanted to do was not allowed because of the real ruling power within Iran. These clerics and then the top dog himself. They only let the elected officials do that which would not affect their power base. Not really a democracy.
Yeah... diplomacy and doing exactly what the terrorrists want will always work!!! </sarcasm>
Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate beasts. Afghanistan is far more democractic than Iraq is at the moment. This has a bit to do with their current government being established for longer. And yes... Its is democratic... And improving and still growing. Its not done yet... And won't be for a while. Iraq on the other hand is not ready for a truly democratic government. There is no way to effectively do anything resembling elections at this time.
More terrorrist bred? Proof! Just because there are more attacks is not proof. There is nothing saying that these attacks are more because of terrorrists than former elements of Saddam's regime. Its a mixture of both. We, the public, have no idea about how these forces are actually made up. There is also the bit about us actually being "in their backyard". Its far easier to attack US forces... Path of least resistance ( i.e. its easier to attack US forces in Iraq than US civilians on the mainland ). There actually is proof that stability is coming about. But once again it won't happen over night. It has not even been a year and people expect Iraq to be "tamed". Well, welcome to reality. There is stability being brought to Iraq, but its not easy and not fast. Successful? Yes, but not perfect. Find me something that is.
Who ever said combatting internationl terror would be easier than local terror? They both should be gotten rid of.
Iran wants to give the appearance of a democracy... But it is not. Its a show. A sham. Just like their following of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty over the past 2 - 3 decades. Massive demonstrations... The ones that get shut down once they get too "massive". Iran wants to say it is democratic just to have the eyes of other nations from focusing on them.
Firstly, and I really dislike how this is brushed over here, that really dedpends on your definition of the word "used".
you would be correct if the word Used specifically implied intent, in that case, no Bombs havent technically been used against civilians. However, this technicallity will not help to revive the 7900+ Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the very same bombs you say havent been "used" on them. [source: Iraqbodycount.org].
(well technically this figure includeds more methods of killing than just bombing, but a death is a death)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So support for extremists has grown? How do you know this? Is it because of all these bombings? What type of proof is that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are of course correct, this is no proof. The very nature of terrorist organisations means there can never really be any proof in this matter, similarly we can never prove nunmbers of terrorists are declining.
While there is no formal proof, it seems clear to me that of all the possible things a nation can do to foster hate and terrorism among the peoples of another nation, Invasion, occupation and killing of civilians <i> MUST </i> rank pretty highly.
are more terrorist being killed than are being created? i guess we'll never know.
back to the subject of analogies, sure go ahead and use them, they help demonstrate exactly what it is your talking about. But they dont prove points, especially when there are some discrepancies between the analogy and the reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More terrorrist bred? Proof! Just because there are more attacks is not proof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and on this point I would like to say, what does it matter about the number of terrorists in the world?
a useless and subjective number!
I would think the biggest factor should <i> surely </i> be <b>How many of these terrorists make an attack</b>.
what is a terrorist who does not make an attack? nothing! someone who maybe thought about making an attack? that is nothing.
a terrorist MUST attack to be called a terrorist!
and while technically you can probably find fault with my arguement, you must see the point!
I dont care how many people think about making attacks, people can think how they like.
what bothers me is how many people die from actual attacks.
and as you said yourself...
"...there are more attacks ..."
Intelligence suggests they are still coordinated and a detatchment of former Iraqi soldiers is moving through Iran to stage a revolt in the Western provinces of Afghanistan in an attempt to create a stronghold there. We'll probably bomb them if they concentrate and that is why they aren't doing it. If they had not been convinced that a straight up offensive vs. the U.S. military is a futile tactic we would have seen more resistance.
Yeah... I can see how stopping all support for a democratic Israel and supporting "opposition groups" would be democratic... :-/ Bombs are not being "thrown" at the the civilians... Bombs have only been used against Iraqi military forces and terrorrists. It's called fighting a war.... While at the same time rebuilding a country.
I never said killing the terrorrists or Saddam or Osama would be easy. It'll be a pain in the rear. It will not happen immediately. It will not happen at the push of a button. It will take time. It will take perseverance. It will take a strong resolve. Dimplomacy will NOT work with them and all they desire is to destroy. So we should destroy them. Its a simple concept really... Implementation is never as simple as the concept.
So support for extremists has grown? How do you know this? Is it because of all these bombings? What type of proof is that? They send one or two people... LOTS of explosives... Make a big boom and you think their numbers are increasing? Stop making claims you cannot support. I cannot say that support has waned... But I do know that it is better for these terrorrists to go into Iraq and fight our soldiers than it is for them to focus on civilians... Whether in the US or not.
You may not have explicitly said do nothing... But being reactive in times like these is the same thing. Dimplomacy is not an option with these international terrorrists. So we have to choose. Should be be reactive or proactive militarily. In the long run being proactive would prove better with far fewer lives lost.
We've spent more than $87 billion actually. Also, that latest $87 billiion is for a number of things. Ongoing military and rebuilding efforst in Afghanistan... As well as military and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. You want to know the best thing about this bill? About $20 billion of it is not a loan. It is a grant. It is FREE money to be used for rebuilding Iraq. This money would do nothing to further efforts to rid ourselves of AIDS or malaria. Creating vaccines for such things takes years. Throwing money at it would not make it speed up. Its a matter of technology. On top of that... There's the matter of educating the entire African continent ( since education would help with the AIDS problem ). Not something that's easy to do. Its better to solve one problem before focusing on another. Terrorrists are the more immediate concern and easier to affect.
You STILL do not get the meaning behind the analogy. You should re-read what Scorpion and I have said about it. The analogy makes sense. It fits. It does not matter if one groups acts are more atrocious than the other. The specifics of solutions do not matter to the analogy. That is not the point and has no bearing on the analogy. The analogy is about intent. The intent to perform an evil deed. And solutions to stopping such actions from repeating. Appeasement and/or doing nothing are not options. Its amazing this is really in question still.
The Taliban was the major ruling authority within Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes it was the government. Still... Lets assume that the Taliban was not a government. If that is the case, then Afghanistan did not have a government. If that is the case, there should be no problems with the US going in and removing Al Quaeda and those that support it. As for Saddam... I have heard here and there of supposed ties between him and terrorrist organizations, nothing really conclusive yet; but I also remember something about him giving asylum to a known terrorrist. In the end... I'll reserve judgement, but I find it far more likely that Saddam did have ties than he did not.
The US taught and supported groups that were fighting against the Soviets. Not exactly a bad thing.
I wouldn't necessarily call a monarch a dictatorship. Although a monarchy could turn into a dictatorship rather easily, it is not the same, or as bad. Egypt is befriended by more than just he US, and for a number of reasons ( the canal and their peace treaty with Israel at the top of the list ).
You did say Iran was democratic. Iran is far from democratic. They tried to implement some democracy within Iran over the past 5 years.... I think part of the government was even elected by the people, but what the elected representatives wanted to do was not allowed because of the real ruling power within Iran. These clerics and then the top dog himself. They only let the elected officials do that which would not affect their power base. Not really a democracy.
Yeah... diplomacy and doing exactly what the terrorrists want will always work!!! </sarcasm>
Iraq and Afghanistan are two separate beasts. Afghanistan is far more democractic than Iraq is at the moment. This has a bit to do with their current government being established for longer. And yes... Its is democratic... And improving and still growing. Its not done yet... And won't be for a while. Iraq on the other hand is not ready for a truly democratic government. There is no way to effectively do anything resembling elections at this time.
More terrorrist bred? Proof! Just because there are more attacks is not proof. There is nothing saying that these attacks are more because of terrorrists than former elements of Saddam's regime. Its a mixture of both. We, the public, have no idea about how these forces are actually made up. There is also the bit about us actually being "in their backyard". Its far easier to attack US forces... Path of least resistance ( i.e. its easier to attack US forces in Iraq than US civilians on the mainland ). There actually is proof that stability is coming about. But once again it won't happen over night. It has not even been a year and people expect Iraq to be "tamed". Well, welcome to reality. There is stability being brought to Iraq, but its not easy and not fast. Successful? Yes, but not perfect. Find me something that is.
Who ever said combatting internationl terror would be easier than local terror? They both should be gotten rid of.
Iran wants to give the appearance of a democracy... But it is not. Its a show. A sham. Just like their following of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty over the past 2 - 3 decades. Massive demonstrations... The ones that get shut down once they get too "massive". Iran wants to say it is democratic just to have the eyes of other nations from focusing on them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The iraqis have no way to participate in decision making on local level and are being structurally ignored.
Israel is and has been violating tons of UN resolutions. Why dont you see supporting opposition groups in tyrannies is democratic? Bombs are not thrown at civilians, but that's not my point. My point is that you bring democracy to Iraq ( or at least pretend to try to) by war, not by democracy.
So, ok, you kill Osama Bin Laden. How many independent cells will continue? A wild guess: All. GJ!.
After half an hour of googling, I finally found some evidence on growing support for terrorism. Yay!
<a href='http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/jun03/threat3.html' target='_blank'>http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/jun03/threat3.html</a>
No, the question is not whether we should act reactively or proactively, the question is how to stop terrorism in the future. Decades of Israeli politics have shown us that simply using force does not work. If we want to win this war in the long run, we will have to fight poverty and inequality.
Sure, AIDS and Malaria are not easy to fight, and will take lots of years. But since millions of people die from it every year, we better start now. Why do you think extra money would not speed up research? Why do you think that clearing out swamps is a matter of technology? It can be done right now, if only there was enough money. These diseases have killed more people within the US ( dont even start about outside the US) and continue to do so every day. Immediate concern.
It is not amazing. I am sure that Hitler would not have gained so much support if the Versailles Treaty would have been less harsh. Not exactly appeasement, but then again, I'm not proposing it.
No, it is not ok for the US to invade a country without it's consent (or that of the UN). The problem, I think, is that you confuse the results from the war on terror ( with negative results sofar) with wars against local regimes ( with mixed results). About Saddam: Well, he might have supported palestinian terrorism, but no proof of bonds between him and Al Quaeda or another organisation have been discovered (AFAIK)
The US supported the Mujahideen (spelling?) in Afghanistan. One of them: our beloved bin. Not a bad thing, you say <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Then, tell me the difference between a monarchy and a hereditary dictatorship. Befriending countries because they have a canal is kind of ehm.. realistic. Egypt is not democratic, it's authoritarian. So, if you want to bring democracyand take down other forms of government, don't be friends with non-democracies ( even if theyhave a canal ^_^)
I'm not saying it is a democracy. I said it was more democratic than other countries. Yes, they do have regular elections, but new laws have to be passed through a counsil of religious leaders). Not very democratic, but democracy is a gliding scale: not every country is a pure democracy ( like Singapore, which does not have free press but does have elections)
Afghanistanb is not (purley) democratic. I don't remember elections being held there. Plus, I'm quite pessimistic about the presidential system the Afghan constitutional draft is proposing, especially since the bounds within tribes are strong and the largest tribe is that from which the Taliban sprouted.
If I define terrorists as people commiting terrorist acts, and most terrorists acts are suicide bombings, the conclusion must be that there are more new terrorists. Terrorism is not only on the rise in Iraq, but in the whole Middle East ( bombings on embassies and synagogues). Why do you think the bringing of stability is, or will be successful?
Sure, but, referring to the Israeli case, fact is that pure violence DOES NOT WORK
Once again, I did not say Iran is a democracy, it is just far more democratic. Purely authoritarian regimes dont hold elections, or allow non-state-supported demonstrations.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Are you saying things would have gotten much worse if we hadn't invaded Iraq and **** off just about the entire Middle East?
That's true. However, what you can do is make other people angry so that they'll join the people trying to kill you. Not a wize move. Also, you can try and identify why these people hate you, and attack the problem at the source.