What is the solution to America being a terrorist nation?

[Smurf]

Quetz of course. Guy doesn't seem to have the vocabulary to say anything else.

 

[Smurf]

A point of view that seems to be rather common on this board I might add.

Regards,

I don't know about that. It depends what you call a 'terrorist nation'. You yanks seem to take special offense at the word, as if it's the worst thing in the world to be called. When I think of America I don't think bela clava's and improvised explosives, I think corrupt CEOs and Government officials who don't mind killing innocent people and violating their own citizen's rights to make a buck.

 

[Townsend]

I don't know about that. It depends what you call a 'terrorist nation'. You yanks seem to take special offense at the word, as if it's the worst thing in the world to be called. When I think of America I don't think bela clava's and improvised explosives, I think corrupt CEOs and Government officials who don't mind killing innocent people and violating their own citizen's rights to make a buck.

I take offense to the idea of equating anything America has done with what terrorists have done. A word is just a word and I could careless about it but what is meant by the word... I don't like it...

I can compromise, and I can and will acknowledge that America has made some mistakes and needs to throttle back. I accept that America does not rule over the world and I want it to be that way.

But it don't see the point in trying to compromise...

The point of this thread was to try and show that a lot of people from around the world, whether they will admit it or not, are expecting something from America which no other country would be willing to do.

What country is willing to come to an understanding with the US? By the sounds of things from people in other countries around the world, they think that the only country that is not allowed to save face is the United States. TSM talks about China willing to go to WWIII over face...but at the same time he lashes out at the United States. He tries to denigrate any good thing the United States has ever done.

People here have insulted the Constitution of the US, described the US as the anti-thesis of its own political religion.

This kind of attitude will only result in Americans becoming more resolute in their determination to support the current actions of the US. It will result in more division between the people of the United States.

Perhaps, a lot of you are just emotionally charged and want to lash out. Fine...say whatever makes you feel better...

But let's face it...for a lot of people around the world the only thing keeping America alive is the power of its military. It is something that I feel at least a few of the members here seem to agree with. At least from everything in their post I can only conclude so much.

Anyways... its late

 

[alexandra]

So what about future terrorist attacks? What are we to do when they bring the American economy to its knees?

I have two questions for you, Townsend:
1. When did Iraq ever conduct a terrorist attack on American soil? Please provide evidence that Iraqi terrorists attacked the US, ever.
2. When did Iraq try to bring the American economy to its knees? How did they do this? Again, evidence would be appreciated.

You are so sure of the facts that showing me the evidence should be no problem, I imagine.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I take offense to the idea of equating anything America has done with what terrorists have done. A word is just a word and I could careless about it but what is meant by the word... I don't like it...

Careful ... When you get mad, you just might lash out and hurt someone.

I can compromise, and I can and will acknowledge that America has made some mistakes and needs to throttle back. I accept that America does not rule over the world and I want it to be that way.

Yes, you can but you don't. In fact, the only ones who do NOT offer solutions on this whole thread ARE the republican Americans because of their blind patriotism.

But it don't see the point in trying to compromise...

Yes ... Why compromise when you have all the guns. Quite right too. If it was good enough for the Romans, it must be good enough for you.

The point of this thread was to try and show that a lot of people from around the world, whether they will admit it or not, are expecting something from America which no other country would be willing to do.

And you have shown us that while there were equal countries in the world, the USA did things BECAUSE they had something to fear. Now that you are the only remaining nuclear power with the most guns, you have shown you have neither the interest or the intent at compromise while you have the power to dictate and demand.

You further reinforce this observation by negotiating with the 'Axis of Evil' member that officially became a nuclear power while invading the one that didn't.

Your very actions in this world motivate a return to terrorism as a solution because it is the only way to fight back.

You announce a theology of martial power and then expound upon it with theories on how the second most powerful military might on the other side of the world could not stand against you and you are right.

So who is going to try to stand against you in an army?

It is your very efficiency that has brought about 'terrorists' who fight for their rights just as sure as you fought for yours when faced with a foreign power of 'extreme power'.

When bin Laden did this to the USSR, America hailed him as a hero.

If you want to find out just what the official position was ... try watching Rambo III.

What country is willing to come to an understanding with the US? By the sounds of things from people in other countries around the world, they think that the only country that is not allowed to save face is the United States. TSM talks about China willing to go to WWIII over face...but at the same time he lashes out at the United States. He tries to denigrate any good thing the United States has ever done.

LOL ... Your words in my mouth again, I see.

What is 'an understanding with the US'?

"If you're not with us, you're against us?"

Is THAT the 'understanding'?

Are we to 'understand' that if we take a contrary opinion to the US administration that, because we are not 'with you', we are 'targets'?

People here have insulted the Constitution of the US, described the US as the anti-thesis of its own political religion.

This kind of attitude will only result in Americans becoming more resolute in their determination to support the current actions of the US. It will result in more division between the people of the United States.

Yeah ... It's called being pig headded.

The constitution and all rights end at the border. From that point, martial law reigns.

This explains Camp X-ray, "extraordinary rendition", etc.

You have actually taken to sending teams into the sovereign territory of nations you are allied with and shipping people to third nations for torture.

Is this part of your 'new constitution'? Your constitution talks of the rights of the people of the USA. I wonder where the 'other' document is that explains the rights of people OUTSIDE the continental USA?

Perhaps, a lot of you are just emotionally charged and want to lash out. Fine...say whatever makes you feel better...

But let's face it...for a lot of people around the world the only thing keeping America alive is the power of its military. It is something that I feel at least a few of the members here seem to agree with. At least from everything in their post I can only conclude so much.

Damn, I didn't know Americans were so downtrodden ... such poor victims in this world.

I'm going to tune my violin now.

Does anyone have the sheet music for 'Hearts and Flowers'?

 

[DM]

Townsend

So what about future terrorist attacks? What are we to do when they bring the American economy to its knees?

Isn’t it already happening? What happened to the dollar a few months back? This bearing in mind that it was without the presence of terrorists in the country. Imagine now what could happen if terrorists decide on attacking America again?

Townsend

The point of this thread was to try and show that a lot of people from around the world, whether they will admit it or not, are expecting something from America which no other country would be willing to do.

Yes a lot of people genuinely believed the US would find its perpetrators. Sadly they didn’t and still haven’t. What dismays me the most is the fact of shooting stray bullets, metaphorically meaning that instead of studying the facts better, they concluded on pointing the finger at Iraq and purport that something was done. Have you noticed the façade Bush puts on? “The war on terror continues”. What on Earth will they do with Saddam in prison?

Townsend

You said that we should be humble. I am asking about future terrorist attacks. What can we do? Since we cannot work to prevent any kind of future terrorist attacks, the attacks will surely come and like never before. What can we do about it?

In my perspective, the United States cannot do anything about it. It’s irrational to devise “solutions” when there’s none, the US is in a dire quagmire with desperation resting on its shoulder.

Townsend

But let's face it...for a lot of people around the world the only thing keeping America alive is the power of its military. It is something that I feel at least a few of the members here seem to agree with. At least from everything in their post I can only conclude so much.

And it is with military power that the US will sink itself further down. The deadly combination of using military power with contradictory stipulations and ideologies on both sides, with insurgents and extremists using suicide bombs as their military power, that conflicts are likely to be everlasting.

This perverted evil cannot be uprooted from our system when there's people taking innocent lives, this will only cause more hatred behaviour from those that had originally nothing to do with it and thereby causing a broader insurgency. I fear that even with the removal of military power in Iraq, that it may be too late to avert terrorism acts around Europe and America.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Or perhaps on the contrary they thought surrounding themselves with children would protect them from being blown up.

Do you have any proof of such a ridiculous claim?

And yet the statistics clearly show that the US are 4* as efficient at killing civilians. The facts do not support your hypothesis. Has it occurred to you that your thinking might be skewed by US gov't propaganda.

So that is your counter-argument? That I have been brainwashed by gov't propoganda?

No, one of the best news sources that I have access to are friends of mine who are now returning home from Iraq. They paint a somewhat different picture than both media extremes portray (one extreme saying that the war is just going splendidly, and the other extreme - the one that you subscribe to - that the war is a complete mess. According to people with first-hand knowledge, neither view is correct.)

Yes you should definitely read the Geneva conventions. I think you will find you are very much mistaken or are you seriously saying civilians should wear uniforms before they can claim protection under the Geneva conventions?

No, it was my point that the insurgents are not wearing uniforms and thus are not subject to the Geneva convention. I am well aware of what the Geneva convention says and what is currently taking place is not a violation of it. If it were, then I'm sure we would hear more from the impotent organization that we call the UN.

The problem seems to be that you in line with Bush and his administration believe the Geneva conventions are an a la carte menu to be taken or left at one's pleasure. The rest of the world does not hold with this view.

Our military goes to great length to be compliant with the Geneva convention, whereas the insurgents do not, so please excuse my lack of sympathy.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Quetz of course. Guy doesn't seem to have the vocabulary to say anything else.

it is with unteneted certitude that your perfidious guile absconds any aspect of truth, but rather is the chicanery of garrulous retardedness and culpability.

 

[Art]

it is with unteneted certitude that your perfidious guile absconds any aspect of truth, but rather is the chicanery of garrulous retardedness and culpability.

I think that is a terminalogicalinexactitude

 

[Art]

Do you have any proof of such a ridiculous claim?

You still haven't answered the question I posed to you.

So that is your counter-argument? That I have been brainwashed by gov't propoganda?

No my counter-argument was the statistics I supplied.

No, one of the best news sources that I have access to are friends of mine who are now returning home from Iraq. They paint a somewhat different picture than both media extremes portray (one extreme saying that the war is just going splendidly, and the other extreme - the one that you subscribe to - that the war is a complete mess. According to people with first-hand knowledge, neither view is correct.)

And a friend of mine says Bush is actually an alien impersonating a cretin but as this is mere hearsay (like your source) I won't push it.

No, it was my point that the insurgents are not wearing uniforms and thus are not subject to the Geneva convention. I am well aware of what the Geneva convention says and what is currently taking place is not a violation of it. If it were, then I'm sure we would hear more from the impotent organization that we call the UN. Our military goes to great length to be compliant with the Geneva convention, whereas the insurgents do not, so please excuse my lack of sympathy.

Really - You are well aware of what the Geneva conventions say? How about;

According to the Charter of the United Nations, every state has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of any state. ( Protocol I, Preamble )

The Geneva Conventions must not be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. ( Protocol I, Preamble)

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. ( Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)

The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

Warring parties must try to make local agreements to allow the removal of children from besieged or encircled areas. (Convention IV, Art. 17)

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military property and attack only military property. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

Prisoners of war may not be tortured mentally or physically, and no other form of coercion may be used during interrogation. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer must not be punished in any way. (Convention III, Art. 17)

The wounded and sick are to be collected and cared for by the party that has them in its power. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 2)

Murder is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

War crimes are againt the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

And yet you claim to be familiar with the Geneva conventions and that US forces observe them? I respectfully suggest you rethink your position.

 

[DM]

On the subject of children and Iraq, reading does certainly help:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1274.shtml

"They took the name of every student and matched the names to the photos they got from the day before and then arrested the students.They actually dragged them by their shirts onto the floor and out of the class."

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

You still haven't answered the question I posed to you.

I'm sorry, which question is this that you are referring to?

No my counter-argument was the statistics I supplied.

Let me see if I understand this, you are saying that 37% of the civilian casualties are due to US personnel. You are also saying that the US forces claim great accuracy due to training and technology, and therefore you conclude that these civilian casualties are purposefully inflicted.

However, I do not see how you can make that conclusion when the US military forces are operating in response to the insurgency. If a gunmen is in a building shooting at people (civilians and US soldiers) the soldiers are expected, in the interest of their security, the security of the civilians and the stability of the Iraq, to shoot back. In the process I agree that civilians will die, but my point is that this is unavoidable and largely the blame falls upon the insurgents. They wish to engage US forces in populated areas, so who's fault is that?

The other week in the news, here in the US, some scumbag was toting a gun and waving it at police...and he happened to use his 2 year old daughter as a shield. He began shooting. The police could not let a crazed gunmen start shooting, since this was in a public place and they have a duty to protect the people. They shot back, and in the gunfight that ensued the child was sadly killed. You cannot blame the officers for this, they were not the ones who dragged the child into that situation.

And a friend of min says Bush is actually an alien impersonating a cretin but as this is mere hearsay (like your source) I won't push it.

Yes, but I am talking about people who have actually spent more than a year on the ground in Baghdad, the very people that we read about in the news. I'm not talking about some drunk at a bar. While I realize that this is not a citeable source, it is useful for this conversation since you have raised the question of US troops using children as human shields..I find this hard to believe. Whatever you may think of our soldiers, and whatever you may hate about the US for invading Iraq, I can assure you that cowards they are not.

And yet you claim to be familiar with the Geneva conventions and that US forces observe them? I respectfully suggest you rethink your position.

And yet you are the only one making this claim, so I am supposed to take your legal advice regarding the matter? Where is a UN ruling finding the US in violation of the Geneva Convention?

 

[The Smoking Man]

On the subject of children and Iraq, reading does certainly help:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1274.shtml

"They took the name of every student and matched the names to the photos they got from the day before and then arrested the students.They actually dragged them by their shirts onto the floor and out of the class."

Other countries too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,942347,00.html

 

[alexandra]

I am sick of all the criticism that is being directed towards America with no solutions given. What is the solution? What should be done with America...Lets hear it.

Here is one solution proposed by a US academic, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky:

There is broad agreement among specialists on how to reduce the threat of terror - keeping here to the subcategory that is doctrinally acceptable, their terror against us - and also on how to incite terrorist atrocities, which may become truly horrendous. The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol (a more dangerous one after he is killed, perhaps, becoming a martyr who inspires others to join his cause). The role of Washington's current incumbents, in their Reaganite phase, in creating the radical Islamist networks is well known. Less familiar is their tolerance of Pakistan's slide toward radical Islamist extremism and its development of nuclear weapons.

As Burke reviews, Clinton's 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol, forged close relations between him and the Taliban, and led to a sharp increase in support, recruitment, and financing for Al Qaeda, which until then was virtually unknown. The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message "spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world," Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists" enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. As noted, the invasion of Iraq had the same effect.

Citing many examples, Burke concludes that "Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden," who "is winning," whether he lives or dies. Burke's assessment is widely shared by many analysts, including former heads of Israeli military intelligence and the General Security Services.

There is also a broad consensus on what the proper reaction to terrorism should be. It is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves and at the reservoir of potential support. The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency the terrorists - who see themselves as a vanguard - seek to mobilize, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause. We can help the vanguard mobilize this reservoir of support by violence, or can address the "myriad grievances," many legitimate, that are "the root causes of modern Islamic militancy." That can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal.

Violence can succeed, as Americans know well from the conquest of the national territory. But at terrible cost. It can also provoke violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the only illustration. Others are even more hazardous.

Reference: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/0919force.htm

 

[loseyourname]

Here is one solution proposed by a US academic, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky:

Two things:

1) That strategy was proposed by Jason Burke, not Noam Chomsky.

2) That strategy was a proposed solution to Islamic terrorism, not American terrorism.

 

[Art]

I'm sorry, which question is this that you are referring to?

Ref post #18

Let me see if I understand this, you are saying that 37% of the civilian casualties are due to US personnel. You are also saying that the US forces claim great accuracy due to training and technology, and therefore you conclude that these civilian casualties are purposefully inflicted.

No, Ref post #9

However, I do not see how you can make that conclusion when the US military forces are operating in response to the insurgency. If a gunmen is in a building shooting at people (civilians and US soldiers) the soldiers are expected, in the interest of their security, the security of the civilians and the stability of the Iraq, to shoot back. In the process I agree that civilians will die, but my point is that this is unavoidable and largely the blame falls upon the insurgents. They wish to engage US forces in populated areas, so who's fault is that?

You might think it is okay but per the Geneva convention the US action is illegal Ref post #45.

The other week in the news, here in the US, some scumbag was toting a gun and waving it at police...and he happened to use his 2 year old daughter as a shield. He began shooting. The police could not let a crazed gunmen start shooting, since this was in a public place and they have a duty to protect the people. They shot back, and in the gunfight that ensued the child was sadly killed. You cannot blame the officers for this, they were not the ones who dragged the child into that situation.

Yes the story even made the news here. And why is that? It's because the actions of the police were considered highly controversial.

Yes, but I am talking about people who have actually spent more than a year on the ground in Baghdad, the very people that we read about in the news. I'm not talking about some drunk at a bar. While I realize that this is not a citeable source, it is useful for this conversation since you have raised the question of US troops using children as human shields..I find this hard to believe. Whatever you may think of our soldiers, and whatever you may hate about the US for invading Iraq, I can assure you that cowards they are not.

Perhaps the people you know are very decent folk but that doesn't mean to say there are no rotten apples in the US military. As for cowardice - check out the murder of civilians by US helicopter pilots on Haifa Street caught on live TV and the subsequent squirming by the US military authorities (3 sets of excuses superseding each other as earlier excuses were demolished) for an example of cowardice. Or even the links supplied above to the school incident, looks like some US forces are very tough when it's only unarmed kids they have to deal with.

And yet you are the only one making this claim, so I am supposed to take your legal advice regarding the matter? Where is a UN ruling finding the US in violation of the Geneva Convention?

I think you will find I am not a lone voice on this issue either in this forum or internationally. Here's a sample of the numerous reports you can find on the net.

UN Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror
By Thalif Deen
Inter Press Service
November 11, 2004
No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here. The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicised torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.”

The hard line taken by the United Nations comes amidst the controversial appointment of a new U.S. attorney general, who has implicitly defended the use of torture against ''terrorists'' and ''terror suspects''.

U.N. Accuses U.K. and U.S. Forces of Breaching Geneva Convention

2003-04-12 | PHOTO: U.S. soldiers in Iraq
LONDON
"'This inaction by the occupying powers is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly state that medical establishments must be protected ..'

UN Human Rights Expert Charges US Using Food Access as Military Tactic

GENEVA -- A UN human rights expert sharply condemned the invasion of Iraq and the global anti-terror drive, accusing the US-led coalition of using food deprivation as a military tactic and of sapping efforts to fight hunger in the world.

Jean Ziegler sharply condemned the invasion of Iraq and the global anti-terror drive, accusing the US-led coalition of using food deprivation as a military tactic in a report to the UN human rights commission. (AFP/Orlando Sierra)

"The situation of the right to food in Iraq is of serious concern," the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said in a report to the UN human rights commission.

The report also highlighted "widespread concerns about the continued lack of access to clean drinking water" and allegations by British campaigners that water sources were deliberately cut off by coalition forces.

"Those are the allegations, but what is proven is that at Fallujah, denial, the blockade imposed on food and the destruction of water reservoirs was used as weapon of war," Ziegler told journalists.

He insisted that the practice was a "clear violation" of the Geneva Conventions and delivered a firm condemnation of any attempt to deny food or water supplies.

 

[alexandra]

Two things:

1) That strategy was proposed by Jason Burke, not Noam Chomsky.

2) That strategy was a proposed solution to Islamic terrorism, not American terrorism.

I stand corrected on point 1 - yes, Chomsky reports on Burke's report

Regarding point 2 - obviously, American military actions (or, as the thread title states, 'American terrorism') are being justified on the grounds that they are necessary to protect US citizens against terrorism. Burke and Chomsky (among others) argue that American militarism will not necessarily achieve this aim - so they suggest that American militarism (my preferred terminology despite the thread title) is counter-productive. In that sense they are proposing a solution - ie, that the military actions cease, and that the root causes of terrorism be addressed.

 

[DM]

Regarding point 2 - obviously, American military actions (or, as the thread title states, 'American terrorism') are being justified on the grounds that they are necessary to protect US citizens against terrorism. Burke and Chomsky (among others) argue that American militarism will not necessarily achieve this aim - so they suggest that American militarism (my preferred terminology despite the thread title) is counter-productive. In that sense they are proposing a solution - ie, that the military actions cease.

And with this point I absolutelly agree with. In addition to the reference text, I believe that above police work, there should exist a greater magnitude of intelligence. Police work often comes to the rescue of atrocities whereas intelligence is capable to stymie the atrocities in the first place.

 

[Townsend]

So if America became isolationist...completely...

The world would be a better, safer place?

 

[DM]

Townsend

So if America became isolationist...completely...

The world would be a better, safer place?

I'm not sure if you're being jingoistic or chauvistic. I don't think that by being isolationist is the case anyway, personally I believe that it's the way in which America conducts its actions against terrorists that makes it so mire. Revamping its system would help.

 

[Smurf]

So if America became isolationist...completely...

The world would be a better, safer place?

there are better solutions than that.

 

[DM]

Smurf

there are better solutions than that.

I agree but I see the revamping as crucial to an iniciating point. Care to elaborate?

 

[Townsend]

there are better solutions than that.

Well you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Are you suggesting that the US should be involved in world affairs but only if it obeys the commands for the rest of the world?

What about the US acting in its own interest? In the best interest of it people? The United States has NO obligation to do anything for any other country ever.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend
I'm not sure if you're being jingoistic or chauvistic.

I hold that the US should act in its own best interest ONLY. If it is in the interest of the US to help another country then it should. Otherwise it should never do anything for anyone.

I don't think that by being isolationist is the case anyway, personally I believe that it's the way in which America conducts its actions against terrorists that makes it so mire. Revamping its system would help.

By revamping I think you mean capitulating. Am I wrong?

 

[BobG]

... The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message "spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world," Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists" enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush...

... The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. ...

I would consider the Afghanistan invasion to be one method of increasing the commitment to 'police work' done in some of the less diligent countries. If Afghanistan, Pakistan, or other countries can't police their own countries well enough to prevent terrorists from setting up camp, then the countries those terrorists attack will police their country for them. In the case of Afghanistan, it was Bin Laden's assistance that kept theTaliban in power in a highly fragmented country - fragmented enough that we had no trouble finding locals willing to assist in eliminating the Taliban. In other words, there was a direct, proven link between the Afghanistan's government and Bin Laden.

The short term effect might have been to increase the cadre of terrorists, but the long term effect of a military campaign directed solely against terrorism and the countries that shelter them would have been better policing of terrorism worldwide and fewer places for terrorists to set up operations and training.

The Afghanistan invasion had an immediate effect on the attitude of Musharaf, Pakistan's ruler. The proper second step would have been to eventually increase the pressure on Pakistan to both step up their efforts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to crack down on the numerous terrorist groups acting within Pakistan. The Afghanistan invasion could have also been used to put pressure on Syria to reduce its presence in Lebanon. Putting a little bite behind your requests can go a long way towards encouraging cooperation from the remaining countries.

It's not US invasion of Afghanistan that has made the world a more dangerous place, nor is it the threat of the US invading another country unwilling to control its own people - it's destroying US credibility by taking a detour through Iraq based on bad evidence. You have to be right every time or else you run the risk of turning the war on terror into a war on the evil US empire.

 

[DM]

Townsend

By revamping I think you mean capitulating. Am I wrong?

I think you're changing things slightly. Capitulate to what?

By revamping I mean overhauling the American system. The way of perceiving and differentiating terrorists from muslim rebels. Authenticity is imperative when dealing with terrorists. I believe the United States and its allies have not succeeded in this area.

 

[DM]

BobG

If Afghanistan, Pakistan, or other countries can't police their own countries well enough to prevent terrorists from setting up camp, then the countries those terrorists attack will police their country for them.

I concur with this view but I think it's awfully optimistic to believe that these countries are able to police and should therefore police its vicinities better. In order to ameliorate police movements, these countries are in need of serious principles and I'm afraid religion plays a crucial role in this. In addition I think there's far too much insurgency to make police movements successful, terrorists that attack those countries and culminate in patroling and hence policing them is in my opinion not viable.

 

[Smurf]

Well you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Are you suggesting that the US should be involved in world affairs but only if it obeys the commands for the rest of the world?

Yes. Yes I am. The US is not above the rest of the world.

What about the US acting in its own interest? In the best interest of it people? The United States has NO obligation to do anything for any other country ever.

What about the US acting in it's own interest? The interests of the US do not outweight the interests of any other nation, or the citizens therein. The US does not need to invade countries to take care of it's self, and if it ever does reach the point where it's national integrity depends upon the killing of any number of people of any group, it no longer deserves it's own sovereignity. It's that simple.

 

[Smurf]

I hold that the US should act in its own best interest ONLY. If it is in the interest of the US to help another country then it should. Otherwise it should never do anything for anyone.

Any paticular reason why you're so ungenerous?

 

[Townsend]

Any paticular reason why you're so ungenerous?

I am generous, very...I have donated well over 3,000 dollars to charities and various projects that I believe in. The best part is that my generosity was, I believe, in my own best interest.

Why do you assume that acting in one own best interest is not generous?

 

[Townsend]

Yes. Yes I am. The US is not above the rest of the world.

Well, then the rest of the world can do without the US...

What about the US acting in it's own interest? The interests of the US do not outweight the interests of any other nation, or the citizens therein.

I would expect that each nation would indeed act in their own best interest. I don't think Canada would like the US telling it how it conducts it's affairs.

The US does not need to invade countries to take care of it's self,

Right...It only needs to invade other countries to take care of other countries. Like it did in WWII when it invaded France to remove the Germans. Then..but only then, the US can invade, because it is helping out OTHER countries. But if the US is attacked...what? We need permission to do anything at that point?

and if it ever does reach the point where it's national integrity depends upon the killing of any number of people of any group, it no longer deserves it's own sovereignity. It's that simple.

I don't understand what your saying here...sorry.

My point is not that I think we should have invaded Iraq, because I don't (or at least not under false pretenses like we did). Just so you do realize what I am saying has nothing to do with Iraq...

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

Townsend
I think you're changing things slightly. Capitulate to what?

How America deals with terrorist is not even half the story. The message I have been getting from people on this board is that America has nothing of value to offer. The think the entire America way of life and government is the problem. They cannot acknowledge a single positive aspect of America that I have brought up. Not one.

By revamping I mean overhauling the American system. The way of perceiving and differentiating terrorists from muslim rebels. Authenticity is imperative when dealing with terrorists. I believe the United States and its allies have not succeeded in this area.

I have not once said that I support the way America is fighting the war or terrorism. I have not attempted to defend it at all. If America never made the mistake of invading Iraq due to bad Intel, nothing that I have discussed on this board would have changed. Nothing.

The topic is that America, if it invaded Iraq or not, is a terrorist nation that is no better than Al Qaeda. What should be done to dismantle this country if we are to believe such diatribe is true?

I want to list some example of anti-Americanism, posted on this board, that has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

The history of South America for the last 100 years (and even longer) has largely been the history of U.S. intereference (many would call it terrorism).

In fact, the U.S. run academy for installing illigitimate Latin American dictators is still around (The School of the Americas).

Same person goes on..

It is about saying we have no right to say muslims are terrorists etc etc when we do the same thing. That doesn't mean it is OK one way or the other, obviously it is not.

He goes on..

Something I've always found interesting: There are declassified documents titled Project Northwoods which were signed off on by the Joint Chiefs ("i before except after c" my ass by the way) but never carried out.

Basically they detailed a plan in which the U.S. government would hijack and crash civilian airliners into buildings and blame the attacks on Cuba, in order to justify an invasion.

This isn't conspiracy theory unfortunately, the information is in the public domain since being declassified, do a google search if you don't take my word for it =(.

They act like we are just a puppet who's strings need to be pulled before we make a move...for example...

We must now redouble our efforts to find the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan and crush them under foot for he is the true evil in this war."

You already had support for this position.

Why did you destroy all of your support in the world by creating the lies that you cling to to justify your actions?

SO NOW WE NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE WORLD TO ACT?


Again...I WAS NOT AND DO NOT CONDONE THE IRAQ WAR...

I could go on and find more Anti-Americanism...but I think the point is clear.

Our forigen policy alone is not the problem in the eyes of so many. The problem is America, from 1776 to present. I have yet to hear anything that would make me think otherwise.

 

[Smurf]

I am generous, very...I have donated well over 3,000 dollars to charities and various projects that I believe in. The best part is that my generosity was, I believe, in my own best interest.

Why do you assume that acting in one own best interest is not generous?

I'm using the traditional definition that acting in one's own interest includes acts that increase one's material wealth and perceived power alone. If this is not what you mean, please explain what a goals a nation has if it is acting purely in self interest and what you're definition of self interest is.

 

[Smurf]

How America deals with terrorist is not even half the story. The message I have been getting from people on this board is that America has nothing of value to offer. The think the entire America way of life and government is the problem. They cannot acknowledge a single positive aspect of America that I have brought up. Not one.

I consistantly acknowledge the good the USA has caused, and I've seen many 'liberals' do the same, albeit less frequently than you. However America seems to be consistantly getting worse, this tends to blunt our perception by showing the future as being worse. So we assume America is worse. It's a fallacy of human perception.

The topic is that America, if it invaded Iraq or not, is a terrorist nation that is no better than Al Qaeda. What should be done to dismantle this country if we are to believe such diatribe is true?

1. No one is equating the US with Al Qaeda.
2. The solution is an anarchist revolution.

 

[Townsend]

I'm using the traditional definition that acting in one's own interest includes acts that increase one's material wealth and perceived power alone. If this is not what you mean, please explain what a goals a nation has if it is acting purely in self interest and what you're definition of self interest is.

Self interest means exactly what you think it means. In the effort to improve ones own material wealth one is forced to improve the material wealth of others. To expand markets you work to help other countries build stronger economies. That way you can sell to them. By donating money I am helping to make the world a better place, a place where material wealth is an achievable goal for more people. In doing so I will continue to expand my own material wealth until I die. More people will benefit this way than could have otherwise.