NationStates Jolt Archive

Many on the Right, including me, feel that the cultural sensitivity of the Left has paralyzed them in defending their own mother culture. They lack constructive optimism in tackling problems but are only content if they are bitching about how the Right is doing it wrong.

...I may not be right in my opinion so those on the Left who have constructive optimism about how to stop or curb Islamic terrorists please educate me on your facts to the solution.

My response:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/06-22-2005.gif

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides.

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides.

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.

I agree. very difficult problem

I have never met a person that was politically left that wanted to spend government money on security, or an army, so I would have to say the left can't do a darn thing but proclaim peace and love throughout the world, which doesn't work.

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides.

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.

Look out - that's a multifaceted, nuanced answer to a complex and difficult question. It may just fly over the heads of the USian right, who seem to criticise people when they can't give "simple" answers to such questions.

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides.

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.

that's exactly what I was talking about

Terrorism exists because freedom exists. It's like this. There are two rocks, and two people. They can each take a rock. Person 1 picks up a rock, and suddenly person 2 wants person 1's rock even though there's a perfectly good rock right next to him. Person 2 only wants Person 1's rock because Person 1 wants it.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to stop terrorism completely, but the right's methods of curbing terrorism seem to be much, much more effective that the left's.

I have never met a person that was politically left that wanted to spend government money on security, or an army, so I would have to say the left can't do a darn thing but proclaim peace and love throughout the world, which doesn't work.
I know EXACTLY how to end terrorism. Get a police car and tie a giant bull horn to the top like the flipping blues brothers and go around the places broadcasting propaganda, and you know WHY this will win? If Bush stops being an ignorant dumbfuck and stops insulting muslims and the middle east, he can use his propaganda machine to win the war with little more than some gas and alot of batteries. The shit they pumped out to win the 2004 election would've made Goebbels proud and if put to the right uses would destroy terrorism in the middle east

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides. Please report to your nearest Radical Mosque. Inprocessing of defeatists has commenced.

For the same reason, we should also abandon the entire criminal code - because there will always be criminals and incarcerating them only encourages them (see US street/drug gangs)

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.
What we are waging war against (or at least what we should be waging war against) is an ideology that says "Believe/Convert or Die" and "You (the US) are responsible for our Shitty Lives".

I agree that they are irrational and unreasonable - but that's no reason to give up your own belief system and way of life.

Terrorism exists because freedom exists. It's like this. There are two rocks, and two people. They can each take a rock. Person 1 picks up a rock, and suddenly person 2 wants person 1's rock even though there's a perfectly good rock right next to him. Person 2 only wants Person 1's rock because Person 1 wants it.

Excellent opening statement! I taught a Syrian who told me his country was justified and right to withhold freedoms from the populace to control those who would do the public greater harm. I agree with your first sentence but not with his.

In Western republics more freedom than in the muslim world exist but there is not more terrorism here than there. Freedom and understanding can allow terrorism to grow and prosper but it's not the cause.

Our current problem with terrorism is that the Middle East seems to think its ok. They let it go because at first it was aimed at Israel but now it is taking on the United States. They let it fester for so long that it is ingrained in the Arab society.

The only way this problem can be rectified is for the Middle East nations to come to grips with the monster they have unleashed and to help put a stop to it. So far they are not doing that. Once they start, then maybe, they can start to curb terrorism and by extension, help the US end it on the scale that it is on now.

I say we project giant prono movies into the night sky or side of mountains 24/7

That would so fuck up the Muslim terrorist's head :)

Ihatevacations']I know EXACTLY how to end terrorism. Get a police car and tie a giant bull horn to the top like the flipping blues brothers and go around the places broadcasting propaganda, and you know WHY this will win? If Bush stops being an ignorant dumbfuck and stops insulting muslims and the middle east, he can use his propaganda machine to win the war with little more than some gas and alot of batteries. The shit they pumped out to win the 2004 election would've made Goebbels proud and if put to the right uses would destroy terrorism in the middle east

LEFTIST CRITICISM DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM GIVE US AN IDEA TOWARDS A SOLUTION

Canada City']I say we project giant prono movies into the night sky or side of mountains 24/7

That would so fuck up the Muslim terrorist's head :)
Wouldn’t sit so well with the Christians either if we did it over here

Canada City']I say we project giant prono movies into the night sky or side of mountains 24/7

That would so fuck up the Muslim terrorist's head :)

Nice Job Canada City. Make them even madder.

Ihatevacations']I know EXACTLY how to end terrorism. Get a police car and tie a giant bull horn to the top like the flipping blues brothers and go around the places broadcasting propaganda, and you know WHY this will win? If Bush stops being an ignorant dumbfuck and stops insulting muslims and the middle east, he can use his propaganda machine to win the war with little more than some gas and alot of batteries. The shit they pumped out to win the 2004 election would've made Goebbels proud and if put to the right uses would destroy terrorism in the middle east

Ihatevacations,

Terrorism has existed LONG BEFORE the Bush administration. How about all those terror attacks done under the Clinton Administration? The 1st Bush Administration? Reagan's? Carter's? Ford's? Nixon's? LBJ's? Kennedy's?

Mohammed Atta stated one of his biggest frustrations was the fact he held a degree in Engineering but waited tables because the Egyptian economy was in the dumps...always has been. When one can pay a price for criticizing one's own government it's much easier to focus the hate on an outside entity.

Look out - that's a multifaceted, nuanced answer to a complex and difficult question. It may just fly over the heads of the USian right, who seem to criticise people when they can't give "simple" answers to such questions.

Actually he didn't even answer the question except to say, "I don't know. We can't beat them, but we can't join them, soooo, I'm gonna roll over and tell you how the right is doing it wrong. :)

For the same reason, we should also abandon the entire criminal code - because there will always be criminals and incarcerating them only encourages them (see US street/drug gangs)

A) We have the right to incarcerate US criminals. They've broken US laws. Hating the US isn't a crime, and as they are not US citizens, not in the US, the "terrorists" can't be held accountable to US law.

What we are waging war against (or at least what we should be waging war against) is an ideology that says "Believe/Convert or Die" and "You (the US) are responsible for our Shitty Lives".

Why? By US standards, they're allowed to think that and say that. Up until the point that they actually harm us, we've got no moral right to attack them. The US should not be comfortable making pre-emptive strikes.

I agree that they are irrational and unreasonable - but that's no reason to give up your own belief system and way of life.
And how would going about our lives, exactly as we always have, be giving up our belief system or way of life? This latest war has been much more a denial of my belief system than trying to live and let live.

Actually he didn't even answer the question except to say, "I don't know. We can't beat them, but we can't join them, soooo, I'm gonna roll over and tell you how the right is doing it wrong. :)

I'm a she.

LEFTIST CRITICISM DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM GIVE US AN IDEA TOWARDS A SOLUTION
That WAS a solution, put a propaganda team on it, namely the one that won bush his 2nd term

Ihatevacations,

Terrorism has existed LONG BEFORE the Bush administration. How about all those terror attacks done under the Clinton Administration? The 1st Bush Administration? Reagan's? Carter's? Ford's? Nixon's? LBJ's? Kennedy's?
How is that relevant to my suggestion? I'm not saying Bush is causing terrorism, I'm partially suggesting he is fanning it, but besides that I suggested his propaganda machine should be used for good instead of evil

Ihatevacations']That WAS a solution, put a propaganda team on it, namely the one that won bush his 2nd term

That was most definitely not a solution but criticism. The only part worth reading was the first sentence.

I'm a she.
Sorry :( . The point was made regardless.

A communist revolution

Propaganda, how?

Ihatevacations']That WAS a solution, put a propaganda team on it, namely the one that won bush his 2nd term

And Kerry was using propaganda to get into office. :rolleyes:

How is that relevant to my suggestion? I'm not saying Bush is causing terrorism, I'm partially suggesting he is fanning it, but besides that I suggested his propaganda machine should be used for good instead of evil

Oh brother. This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard all day long. Bush maybe fanning it but its drawing the terrorists to that region and keeping them out of here and to me, that's good because they go there, they die.

Ihatevacations']I know EXACTLY how to end terrorism. Get a police car and tie a giant bull horn to the top like the flipping blues brothers and go around the places broadcasting propaganda, and you know WHY this will win? If Bush stops being an ignorant dumbfuck and stops insulting muslims and the middle east, he can use his propaganda machine to win the war with little more than some gas and alot of batteries. The shit they pumped out to win the 2004 election would've made Goebbels proud and if put to the right uses would destroy terrorism in the middle east

Are you on medication? Did you miss the last thirty years (or did your teachers gloss over it in school?)

Terrorism has been on a steady increase since the arabs lost the 1973 war. Particularly Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. Further, "Red" Terrorism in Europe didn't really get bad until after the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam (which legitimized the tactics in the eyes of many in the Eastern Bloc as a viable weapon to manipulate the West.)

Bush didn't do anything, except not-join France,Belgium, De Nederlands, Holland, Spain, Italy, and Germany in surrendering to the Islamic Radicals.

Clinton tried to broker a Peace-of-Paper in Israel. the "Peace" created a Palestinian Authority that subsequently failed to curb or control its own members in conducting further attacks-thus crippling any further land-for-peace deals and generating a number of harsh reactions from the Israelis.
His administration also backed off of other militant groups. This did not curb further terrorism, in fact, it only inspired bolder attacks (Khobar Towers, Riyadh, WTC1, Egyptair...)

The American Left wants to surrender their way to peace. The ignorance of that move, is simply this: Historically, "those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the land of those that do not." (Ben Franklin).

WTC2 (The airliners) was planned long before the election of 2000, the agents were in place for months before Bush took office, the targets were likely selected during the Clinton Administration as well-Clinton was well-liked in the International community, and a strike at the pentagon would have looked like an effective means of decapitation of a more-centralized Military Establishment that the Dems were working toward throughout the 1990's.

The war has been going since the Munich games in '72, and like all wars, the only thing worse than being in a war, is losing. Losing to the Islamic Radicals means "Dhimmitude" for the survivors, and death for many, many, more.

A communist revolution

...

BWAHAHAHAH!!!

That was most definitely not a solution but criticism. The only part worth reading was the first sentence.
I didn't say it wasn't criticism, I said it was a solution though.

...

BWAHAHAHAH!!!
We have a candidate for "first up against the wall"

Ihatevacations']I didn't say it wasn't criticism, I said it was a solution though.

Your first sentence yes. I won't deny it. I wish you left it at that and not go off on President Bush.

Nice Job Canada City. Make them even madder.
To be fair, the Iraq war has already done that.

...I may not be right in my opinion so those on the Left who have constructive optimism about how to stop or curb Islamic terrorists please educate me on your facts to the solution.
Which part of the Left are you addressing?

Perhaps a more generous leftist government (it should be more generous) would provide more money to poorer countries where they (usually) come from and for education to help prevent religious indoctrination.

It's very difficult, though. Negociation worked in Northern Ireland. Would it work against Al-Qu'ieda? I don't know.

Your first sentence yes. I won't deny it. I wish you left it at that and not go off on President Bush.
The part about president bush was necesary to answer the why the first part would work, relatively

To be fair, the Iraq war has already done that.

Pissed off alot of terrorists sure. :D why do you think they are getting massacred at the border and inside the country?

We have a candidate for "first up against the wall"

Do you really think that a communist revolution would work in the middle east? The massive government would just end up opressing their citizens, as is happening as we speak. Not a good solution.

Perhaps a more generous leftist government (it should be more generous) would provide more money to poorer countries where they (usually) come from and for education to help prevent religious indoctrination.

Oh brother. This won't work unfortunately.

It's very difficult, though. Negociation worked in Northern Ireland. Would it work against Al-Qu'ieda? I don't know.

Al Qaeda isn't a country. Its a terorist organization that doesn't want to negotiate. Hell, I wouldn't want to negotiate with them either.

Ihatevacations']The part about president bush was necesary to answer the why the first part would work, relatively

It was unnecessary and not to mention false. But I'm not going to go there.

It was unnecessary and not to mention false. But I'm not going to go there.
Bush didn't have an excellent propaganda machine slandering kerry? yes, lets not go into that one... here

It was unnecessary and not to mention false. But I'm not going to go there.

Oh, but you're forgetting- Bush is the terrorist! He's the problem, not Al Queda, not Kim Jong-Il, not Saddam Hussein! It's all Bush's fault! :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']Bush didn't have an excellent propaganda machine slandering kerry? yes, lets not go into that one... here

Considering that the Democrats tossed everything at Bush from Day 1 back in 2002, yea lets not go there.

A) We have the right to incarcerate US criminals. They've broken US laws. Hating the US isn't a crime, and as they are not US citizens, not in the US, the "terrorists" can't be held accountable to US law.I am at a loss as to exactly what you are talking about. We currently have 2 different things going on - a "war on Terror" and a war in Iraq. They have different goals, if overlapping non-Iraqi "combatants".

Why? By US standards, they're allowed to think that and say that. Up until the point that they actually harm us, we've got no moral right to attack them. The US should not be comfortable making pre-emptive strikes.Um... what part of the 9/11 attack on the US did you miss? The war on terror is a war on an ideology that spans several countries and NGOs whose only connection is a particular flavour of radical Islamic Rhetoric. It is this type of violent religionisim that "I" am talking about. What are you talking about?

And how would going about our lives, exactly as we always have, be giving up our belief system or way of life? This latest war has been much more a denial of my belief system than trying to live and let live.
The people who perpetrated violent attacks upon the US, and their supporters, want nothing less than the elimination of the US as a non-Sharia economic power.

Again, what are YOU talking about? Your comments make no sense when analyzed in relation to the theme of this thread, which is that there exist irrational, unreasonable violent people trying to kill USians and there is no way we can do ANYTHING to them that doesn't have a negative impact on the US or the way of life of its citizens.

Ihatevacations']Bush didn't have an excellent propaganda machine slandering kerry? yes, lets not go into that one... here

If by any chance you're referring to the Swift Boat vets, Bush specifically told them to knock it off.

Oh brother. This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard all day long. Bush maybe fanning it but its drawing the terrorists to that region and keeping them out of here and to me, that's good because they go there, they die.
Come on, it can't be that simple! Not all terrorists have received orders from Terrorism Central Command to converge on Iraq. :rolleyes:

Bush didn't do anything, except not-join France,Belgium, De Nederlands, Holland, Spain, Italy, and Germany in surrendering to the Islamic Radicals.
This is really bad, I'm sorry. All of those countries sent troops to Afghanistan. The Netherlands, Spain and Italy sent troops to Iraq.

Oh, and De Nederlands and Holland are the same country. :p

Your first sentence yes. I won't deny it. I wish you left it at that and not go off on President Bush.
You're someone who spends most of his time on these message boards flaming liberals, and hijacking every thread into a Democrats vs Republicans flamefest. You're a hypocrite.

If the Leftist would please stop drawing the Rightist off the topic please and if the Rightist would stop chasing Leftist off topic please.

The Propaganda thing is worth talking about.

Countering madrasas with western styled non religious public education is something worth talking about.

You're someone who spends most of his time on these message boards flaming liberals, and hijacking every thread into a Democrats vs Republicans flamefest. You're a hypocrite

That may be true (and I can't really blame him), but he didn't start it. Ihatevacations started it by criticizing Bush.

Criticizing is no solution to any problem, any time, any place. It blocks progress.

If by any chance you're referring to the Swift Boat vets, Bush specifically told them to knock it off.

Didn't you know, It was Bush's propaganda machine and mind control lasers that forced 40% of the US population as a whole and 90% of the 18-24 demographic to stay home and eat lunch instead of vote.

There have been terrorists of one ilk or another throughout history. There is no reasoning w/ them. If you attack them, they cry martyrdom and attack, if you compromise, they cry weakness and attack.

Can we do some things differently? Sure, but the "war" must continue.

Our current problem with terrorism is that the Middle East seems to think its ok. They let it go because at first it was aimed at Israel but now it is taking on the United States. They let it fester for so long that it is ingrained in the Arab society.

The only way this problem can be rectified is for the Middle East nations to come to grips with the monster they have unleashed and to help put a stop to it. So far they are not doing that. Once they start, then maybe, they can start to curb terrorism and by extension, help the US end it on the scale that it is on now.

People have missed this I see. Alwell. That'll teach me to use logic.

I am at a loss as to exactly what you are talking about. We currently have 2 different things going on - a "war on Terror" and a war in Iraq. They have different goals, if overlapping non-Iraqi "combatants"...
Um... what part of the 9/11 attack on the US did you miss? The war on terror is a war on an ideology that spans several countries and NGOs whose only connection is a particular flavour of radical Islamic Rhetoric. It is this type of violent religionisim that "I" am talking about. What are you talking about?

And, I've shown no opposition to the war in Afghanistan; the war where we are actively searching out the perpetrators of 9/11. (I don't think we can win it, but at least there's a justification to be there.) But Iraq and Saddam Hussein, as evil as he is, had nothing to do with 9/11. There is no proven, or even credible, link between him and 9/11. We went into war equating him with the Taliban because the citizens of the US are racist enough to believe that everyone "over there" was in the midst of waging war on the US. It's simply not true. Iraq may have hated us, but they were in no way prepared to wage war with us. We added to the turmoil in their country for a lie.

If we'd gone to Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I'd be less opposed. But we didn't. We went claiming that there was undeniable proof of an imminent attack on the US, claims which we've been completely unable to back up.


Again, what are YOU talking about? Your comments make no sense when analyzed in relation to the theme of this thread, which is that there exist irrational, unreasonable violent people trying to kill USians and there is no way we can do ANYTHING to them that doesn't have a negative impact on the US or the way of life of its citizens.

So, if our actions are going to have a negative impact on the US, shouldn't we at least stick to our principles?

They can at the very least stop breeding more of it like the political right does.

Pissed off alot of terrorists sure. :D why do you think they are getting massacred at the border and inside the country?
The fact that they just keep coming to massacre and be massacred should be answer enough.

Muslims in the west are usually against the iraq war, and Muslims in the ME are largely extremely angry about it. I don't think they're right, but that's how it is right now.

Al Qaeda isn't a country. Its a terorist organization that doesn't want to negotiate. Hell, I wouldn't want to negotiate with them either.
He was referring to the IRA. But I think that al-Qaeda are far worse than the IRA It was hard to negotiate with that terror organisation, the fundamentalists are way worse.

Countering madrasas with western styled non religious public education is something worth talking about.
I agree. If I were in charge of Iraq right now, I would make secular education programmes a top priority. It's a pity that they were given back their sovereignty so soon, at least in this regard. Why didn't the US just follow the Japan plan that worked so well after WWII?

That may be true (and I can't really blame him), but he didn't start it. Ihatevacations started it by criticizing Bush.

Criticizing is no solution to any problem, any time, any place. It blocks progress.
I was using selective criticism to support my view.
My view: a propaganda team that could win Bush the 2004 election could use its skill for good to end terrorism.

Corneliu unwittingly agreed with me when he pointed out that "Democrats were throwing sverything at Bush since 2002"

Well one way that for sure isn't going to help is starting unnecessary wars for oil.

What might help, however, would be somehow projecting a more positive image of the US. Giving tons of money for education or something (and giving it directly to schools, not to the corrupt as hell middle eastern governments), and then checking to make sure it's used for a real education, not "America is the great Satan" propaganda, could possibly have some good effect.

So might pulling out of the middle east altogether, completely, and minding our own business. After all, what business of ours is the middle east? Maybe we shouldn't try to mediate Arab/Israeli conflicts either, since we're not percieved as neutral. The Norwegians or Czechs could do that.

Ihatevacations']I was using selective criticism to support my view.
My view: a propaganda team that could win Bush the 2004 election could use its skill for good to end terrorism.

Corneliu unwittingly agreed with me when he pointed out that "Democrats were throwing sverything at Bush since 2002"

They spewed propaganda yes, but it didn't work and they were doing it longer than the Bush Administration.

Terrorism exists because freedom exists. It's like this. There are two rocks, and two people. They can each take a rock. Person 1 picks up a rock, and suddenly person 2 wants person 1's rock even though there's a perfectly good rock right next to him. Person 2 only wants Person 1's rock because Person 1 wants it.

my dog Molly is a terrorist:

Molly has bones all over the house on which she can chew

If another dog comes in the house, and I give that dog a bone, Molly wants that dog's bone.

So I give Molly a fresh bone of her own.

Molly takes it, drops it and continues trying to wrest the bone away from the other dog. She just stands there and stares at the other dog and the dog's bone.

lol

Why didn't the US just follow the Japan plan that worked so well after WWII?

That did work very well, didn't it? Come to think of it, they probably should have studied that in detail before going in, because that was a very successful occupation and then return of sovereignty.

Criticizing is no solution to any problem, any time, any place. It blocks progress.
Well, that's what Tojo said to those unpatriotic bastards!

So might pulling out of the middle east altogether, completely, and minding our own business. After all, what business of ours is the middle east?
When has isolationism ever helped to stop humanitarian disasters?

They spewed propaganda yes, but it didn't work and they were doing it longer than the Bush Administration.
What are you arguing, Corny? IHV's original point was that Bush's propaganda was better than that of the Democrats. You're agreeing with him.

That did work very well, didn't it? Come to think of it, they probably should have studied that in detail before going in, because that was a very successful occupation and then return of sovereignty.

True but it was also a different time frame too. I don't think the Japanese model would've worked in Iraq though it is a good thought.

Let's look at it this way: Most terrorists organizations are centered around either a single man or a single group of men who are the ones who pushed everyone else into radicalism and violence. Without these men (and their propoganda, which is the important thing), we wouldn't really to have to worry about anything but the very occasional terrorist attack (think Timothy McViegh, but on a very small scale) from an individual.

Now, these men tend to get what they want through very basic Orwellian methods: all the problems you experience are because of those damned Eurasians (The Western World (tm) in this case). Eliminate the cause of the problem, and the problem goes away. They use various justifications for this line of thinking, anything from Israel to Bush's War in Iraq.

However, don't we have people like that over here? Neo-nazis? The KKK? Of course we do, not everyone has the advantage of greater cultural evolution. But why isn't the US like, say, the KSA in terrorist output? A myriad of reasons, but one of the biggest is that everyone knows just what kind of crackpots the various hate and jingoistic groups are.

So, what happens when we remove the justification these manipulators give for why America and Europe are the Source of All Evil in the Middle East (tm)? Do they appear to be just as big a group of crackpots as the hate groups over here? Why yes, yes they do. This would, in effect, be like severing the serpent's spinal cord instead of cutting its head off.

What I believe we should do is tighten border security all around: no one gets in or out without a thorough background check. Yes, it would hurt the economy and greatly decrease immigration, but it will only be temporary.

Anyway, when we catch someone coming in with terrorist ties or suspicions, we keep a close watch on them. If and when they proceed in carrying out any plan they may or may not have, we pick 'em up. However, we don't ship them off to some camp with no access to a lawyer or the outside world, we instead bring them back home.

That's right, we let 'em go. We put them on a plane and fly them back to their country of origin. We stick 'em in a truck and bring them right to their front door. We make damned sure our troops treat them with the respect every human being deserves, we throw 'em a salute, and we drive off.

Well well now, The Great Satan we are not, it seems.

After a while of doing this, several years about, terrorism starts to dry up as each no potential suicide bomber thinks "Well, Mohammed said he was going to blow himself up for The Cause (tm), but Americans returned him to his house. They even gave his son a toy to play with. Maybe those guys who tell me America is bad aren't telling the whole truth".

WHOA! Amazing, ain't it?

Also, going to war against terrorism is whole-heartedly idiotic. Terrorism is an ideal we can beat through oppression of the populace (and I mean real oppression, Nazi or Kim Jong-Il style, not the weak shadow of an occupation we have in Iraq) or through compassion. Considering the ideals a stake, the first just isn't an option for America. Instead, we find ourselves in a conflict where we have to win the love of the very people we are "fighting" against.

As a knowledgable man I know once said: "It's hard to win the hearts and minds of the people when those hearts and minds are scattered about the village".

When has isolationism ever helped to stop humanitarian disasters?

It hasn't.

What are you arguing, Corny? IHV's original point was that Bush's propaganda was better than that of the Democrats. You're agreeing with him.

Bush did run a better campaign than Kerry did.

It hasn't.



Bush did run a better campaign than Kerry did.

I think that the problem with the propaganda was this: Bush was trying to tell the US that things were great, (although they aren't that great) and Kerry was trying to tell the US that things were terrible (although though weren't that bad, either), and America simply thought that Bush was right.

But seroiusly, what does this have to do with terrorism?

<snip>What might help, however, would be somehow projecting a more positive image of the US. Giving tons of money for education or something (and giving it directly to schools, not to the corrupt as hell middle eastern governments), and then checking to make sure it's used for a real education, not "America is the great Satan" propaganda, could possibly have some good effect. Short of having the money distributed by a Battalion of Marines and every school populated by more Troops... how would you propose this money, confiscated from poor working schlubs like me, actually do what you say? Hell, that doesn't even work iin the US, much less in Tin Pot land.

So might pulling out of the middle east altogether, completely, and minding our own business. After all, what business of ours is the middle east?It's too late for that. We broke some things and now we need to fix them. Maybe we shouldn't try to mediate Arab/Israeli conflicts either, since we're not percieved as neutral. The Norwegians or Czechs could do that.I won't go into that except to say - It wouldn't matter to the anti-Israeli Arabs whether we mediated or not. The US is seen as either controling or being controlled by Israel (take you pick) and we are therefore the enemy. We stand with Israel because we won't stand for people blowing up civillians to prove a point. It's that simple.

There are humanitarian disasters elsewhere in the world, and much of our involvement in the middle east hasn't been strictly humanitarian.

Africa is usually just as screwed up as the middle east, so are other parts of Asia.

I think that the problem with the propaganda was this: Bush was trying to tell the US that things were great, (although they aren't that great) and Kerry was trying to tell the US that things were terrible (although though weren't that bad, either), and America simply thought that Bush was right.

But seroiusly, what does this have to do with terrorism?

Absolutely nothing but IHV (sounds like an abbreviation for a disease) included Bush in his post and a sub thread insued. :D

Africa is usually just as screwed up as the middle east, so are other parts of Asia.

Let Europe handle Africa and Asia. They screwed it up so let them fix it.

That did work very well, didn't it? Come to think of it, they probably should have studied that in detail before going in, because that was a very successful occupation and then return of sovereignty.
I agree. But imagine the criticism! By today's standards, the Japan occupation was wildly authoritarian. McArthur was practically the dictator of Japan for five years. The Japanese consititution was mostly drafted by Americans. Sovereignty was not returned until 1951. But it worked, and that's the important thing.

Let's look at it this way: Most terrorists organizations are centered around either a single man or a single group of men who are the ones who pushed everyone else into radicalism and violence. Without these men (and their propoganda, which is the important thing), we wouldn't really to have to worry about anything but the very occasional terrorist attack (think Timothy McViegh, but on a very small scale) from an individual.

Now, these men tend to get what they want through very basic Orwellian methods: all the problems you experience are because of those damned Eurasians (The Western World (tm) in this case). Eliminate the cause of the problem, and the problem goes away. They use various justifications for this line of thinking, anything from Israel to Bush's War in Iraq.

However, don't we have people like that over here? Neo-nazis? The KKK? Of course we do, not everyone has the advantage of greater cultural evolution. But why isn't the US like, say, the KSA in terrorist output? A myriad of reasons, but one of the biggest is that everyone knows just what kind of crackpots the various hate and jingoistic groups are.

So, what happens when we remove the justification these manipulators give for why America and Europe are the Source of All Evil in the Middle East (tm)? Do they appear to be just as big a group of crackpots as the hate groups over here? Why yes, yes they do. This would, in effect, be like severing the serpent's spinal cord instead of cutting its head off.

What I believe we should do is tighten border security all around: no one gets in or out without a thorough background check. Yes, it would hurt the economy and greatly decrease immigration, but it will only be temporary.

Anyway, when we catch someone coming in with terrorist ties or suspicions, we keep a close watch on them. If and when they proceed in carrying out any plan they may or may not have, we pick 'em up. However, we don't ship them off to some camp with no access to a lawyer or the outside world, we instead bring them back home.

That's right, we let 'em go. We put them on a plane and fly them back to their country of origin. We stick 'em in a truck and bring them right to their front door. We make damned sure our troops treat them with the respect every human being deserves, we throw 'em a salute, and we drive off.

Well well now, The Great Satan we are not, it seems.

After a while of doing this, several years about, terrorism starts to dry up as each no potential suicide bomber thinks "Well, Mohammed said he was going to blow himself up for The Cause (tm), but Americans returned him to his house. They even gave his son a toy to play with. Maybe those guys who tell me America is bad aren't telling the whole truth".

WHOA! Amazing, ain't it?

Also, going to war against terrorism is whole-heartedly idiotic. Terrorism is an ideal we can beat through oppression of the populace (and I mean real oppression, Nazi or Kim Jong-Il style, not the weak shadow of an occupation we have in Iraq) or through compassion. Considering the ideals a stake, the first just isn't an option for America. Instead, we find ourselves in a conflict where we have to win the love of the very people we are "fighting" against.

As a knowledgable man I know once said: "It's hard to win the hearts and minds of the people when those hearts and minds are scattered about the village".
Hey, not a bad Idea... except we will never be allowed to do the whole "tight border & watch the potential kooks" bit... that's "Racist". :rolleyes:

Hey, not a bad Idea... except we will never be allowed to do the whole "tight border & watch the potential kooks" bit... that's "Racist". :rolleyes:

*Shrugs*

I'm not asking for just any old person to be able to be watched, but to prove an actual paper trail within their background check that shows they have ties and potential involvement with a terrorist organization.

Closing the borders, however, would be so lauded by various Republicans and a certain amount of Democrats that I don't think there would be any actual trouble in making it happen.

Of course, anyone who tried this would face assassination at the hands of the corporate run Shadow Government then :D

*Shrugs*
I'm not asking for just any old person to be able to be watched, but to prove an actual paper trail within their background check that shows they have ties and potential involvement with a terrorist organization.And how would you do that without "profiling"?
Closing the borders, however, would be so lauded by various Republicans and a certain amount of Democrats that I don't think there would be any actual trouble in making it happen.
Every time it's mentioned the US Left stirs up a shitstorm of "Racism". If it was easy it would have happened already.

Of course, anyone who tried this would face assassination at the hands of the corporate run Shadow Government then :D

Damn The Patriots!

Your first sentence yes. I won't deny it. I wish you left it at that and not go off on President Bush.
Well Bush is a part of the problem to say the least, as was his father and Reagan. Also, your thinking that Iraq is somehow a terrorist magnet that will result in decreasing terrorism, is somewhat narrow minded.

Most of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis who are somewhat ticked off with the US for destroying their homes and killing their families. This is feeding an increase of anti-American culture in the Middle East, and if you can't see that, then you are blind.

You are percieed as great satan WITH REASON.

Eliminate that reason and terrorism will be shattered. The reason is

1) economic/social. You have been screwing around in that region plenty. Propping bad governments, destroying good ones, threatening the democracy of places like Iran. It's been said before but 'YEEEEHAAAAW' is not a good foreign policy. Especially in places like that.

2) Israel. I've ranted enough about them, especially their bullying anttitide (up to and including crying about the Holocaust every time we try doing something to stop them). As long as the US favours them in the region every muslim with a grudge will be looking at the US as a way of settling the score.

People have missed this I see. Alwell. That'll teach me to use logic.
I didn't miss, and I do not see it as "logical" in any sense. Unless of course you could prove your theory......good luck.

I didn't miss, and I do not see it as "logical" in any sense. Unless of course you could prove your theory......good luck.

:rolleyes:

Apparently you did miss the logic. That's ok. I didnt expect you too. Liberals never see the logic behind the most simplist of suggestions.

Liberals never see the logic behind the most simplist of suggestions.
Why do you assume all of us to be like CH?

:rolleyes:

Apparently you did miss the logic. That's ok. I didnt expect you too. Liberals never see the logic behind the most simplist of suggestions.

Just a word of advice: don't use sweeping generalizations in debate. They're misleading, as they present the world in black and white terms when in fact most of reality lies in shades of gray. Thus,

Anyway, we have a problem in the middle east because of decades of bad foreign policy in that area. They have a reason to be pissed off. When people are pissed off, and then you add a horrible economy and low standard of living to it, they tend to be more easily taken in by simple "Group/Country X is the great Satan and source of all your problems" messages, and they may follow leaders and movements that normally would not attract most reasonable people.

This doesn't always happen, and it's not true of everyone, not even most people. This reaction happens in enough people to cause problems, however. This sort of thing has been seen many times through history. For example, would the German people have followed Hitler and the Nazis if things weren't in the dumps? Would the Bolshevik revolution had any success if life wasn't hell for average Russians? Now, you might say that the Islamic fundie terrorist movement is different from these events/movements, but I think the underlying problems are the same. I genuinely believe that if life was better for the average person in the middle east, there would hardly be any more terrorism/terrorist organizations than there are here.

Now, the problem is that it's very hard to deal with the root causes of terrorism. The problem with many "simple" solutions, is that they attack the symptoms of terrorism, not the cause of the disease. The fact that we support governments (Saudi Arabia, for instance) that oppress their people to no end is certainly not helping us. Saudi Arabia's government isn't going to do anything to curb the terrorism problem, or improve the life of the average person there.

One thing I absolutely do not understand, is how anyone thinks that going to war in Iraq helped prevent terrorism. Now, instead of being simply resentful of us, the populace of basically the entire region is furious at us. This makes it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit, and it's not just the radical muslim fundies anymore.

Why do you assume all of us to be like CH?
So you agree with Corneliu's logic in the post that I was referring to?

:rolleyes:

Apparently you did miss the logic. That's ok. I didnt expect you too. Liberals never see the logic behind the most simplist of suggestions.
The problem is that you are offering a "simplistic" solution to a complex problem. In reality. you are making the problem more complex by simplying blaming the whole set of circumstances on the "Arab society".

History is cause and effect, and I don't think you are looking at the larger picture. There are many issues that came before the current situation, and to reach a peaceful solution, you need to look at all the details.

If the Leftist would please stop drawing the Rightist off the topic please and if the Rightist would stop chasing Leftist off topic please.


Something about this reminds me of: "Gentlemen you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

Back on topic, I'd say that no one can stop terrorism! Terrorism is a form of warfare. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. There's no more stopping terrorism then there is stopping chemical weapons use, nuclear weapons development, or the use of air support. You can kill terrorists, blow up chemical and nuclear weapons factories, shoot down planes, but you can't stop any of them from being a weapon in the potential arsenal of the world.

One thing I absolutely do not understand, is how anyone thinks that going to war in Iraq helped prevent terrorism. Now, instead of being simply resentful of us, the populace of basically the entire region is furious at us. This makes it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit, and it's not just the radical muslim fundies anymore.
I agree wholeheartedly. Probably a better thread would be titled:

"How to stop feeding terrorism"

The problem is that you are offering a "simplistic" solution to a complex problem. In reality. you are making the problem more complex by simplying blaming the whole set of circumstances on the "Arab society".

History is cause and effect, and I don't think you are looking at the larger picture. There are many issues that came before the current situation, and to reach a peaceful solution, you need to look at all the details.

This coming from mister "more guns=more crime" & "less guns=less crime"!?

That's classic.

Why do you assume all of us to be like CH?

I don't!

They spewed propaganda yes, but it didn't work and they were doing it longer than the Bush Administration.
Which is how you unwittingly supported my argument

The problem is that you are offering a "simplistic" solution to a complex problem. In reality. you are making the problem more complex by simplying blaming the whole set of circumstances on the "Arab society".

Since it was Arab society that has been fostering this whole affair, it is an accurate comment. They aren't doing nothing to stop it either. I give Saudi Arabia a C- because they are not doing as much as they could but then again, they're police has been infiltrated by Al Qaeda so that's not a big surprise.

History is cause and effect, and I don't think you are looking at the larger picture. There are many issues that came before the current situation, and to reach a peaceful solution, you need to look at all the details.

All I have to do is point to the three wars that the arabs started and lost. Not to mention the fact that it was the Brits who were the last ones in there. All the US did was support Israel.

Osama's problem was the fact that the Saudi Royal Family asked the US to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq and refused the help offered by Bin Laden. That pissed Bin Ladin off and now look at us. Please. I'm looking at the larger picture. The Middle East needs to crack down on the extremists if this crap is going to end. Until they do and they stop telling there people that we are the so called evil empire (we're not even an empire so the term is inaccurate anyway) then and only then, can the terror problem be tackled without the army going in.

<snip> The fact that we support governments (Saudi Arabia, for instance) that oppress their people to no end is certainly not helping us. Saudi Arabia's government isn't going to do anything to curb the terrorism problem, or improve the life of the average person there.

One thing I absolutely do not understand, is how anyone thinks that going to war in Iraq helped prevent terrorism. Now, instead of being simply resentful of us, the populace of basically the entire region is furious at us. This makes it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit, and it's not just the radical muslim fundies anymore.
I have always considered Iraq & the WOT as two different issues (with the same NGO combatants), and IMO we should have fed the House of Saud & its Wahabi keepers to the Pigs a long time ago.

But I'm not in charge.

And how would you do that without "profiling"?

Simple: Do what I was originally trying to suggest and subject everyone to it. Hard to be racist when everyone has to do it. Oppressive and authoritarian, maybe, but not racist.

Every time it's mentioned the US Left stirs up a shitstorm of "Racism". If it was easy it would have happened already.

Well, it isn't really closing the border so much as making it harder to get in.

Simple: Do what I was originally trying to suggest and subject everyone to it. Hard to be racist when everyone has to do it. Oppressive and authoritarian, maybe, but not racist.Oh, I agree. But the Truth has little to do with PC/Liberal Advocacy Politics.
Well, it isn't really closing the border so much as making it harder to get in. Tell that to the Illegal Mexican Immigrant Lobby.

Well we are almost seven pages into this thing, and still no practical ideas from the left on how to stop terrorism. The fact is, the only way to stop them, is to fight them. The US is simply too good of a scapegoat for the oppressive governments of the Mid-East. That is because our society is so different from theirs and is quite successful. The only way we will ever be able to appease the terrorists is if we invade Israel and give it to the Palestinians, convert to Islam and kill off or deport our Jewish population.

Well we are almost seven pages into this thing, and still no practical ideas from the left on how to stop terrorism.

Yeah, if you ignore all the practical ideas for stopping terrorism put forth in this topic, you're right.

Bah, what a fool, probably won't even pick up on the sarcasm. I hate partisan hacks.

Oh, I agree. But the Truth has little to do with PC/Liberal Advocacy Politics.

Well, PC groups never seem to be able to compete with pure numbers, why don't we throw out the statistics that say 100% of those who attempt to enter the country are given a thorough background check and 0% were targeted because they were Arabs?

Tell that to the Illegal Mexican Immigrant Lobby.

A lot of people in the group are there because they are allowing themselves to be defined by their opposite, meaning they're doing it to be disagreeable with the "conservatives" (though I'm a liberal who's all for tightening border security, odd, eh?).

Since it was Arab society that has been fostering this whole affair, it is an accurate comment. They aren't doing nothing to stop it either. I give Saudi Arabia a C- because they are not doing as much as they could but then again, they're police has been infiltrated by Al Qaeda so that's not a big surprise.
This is coming from someone who totally supports the Israeli viewpoint, agrees with US vetoes against UN Resolutions that cite Israel, and totally condemns the people of Palestine. I am sure your input into any discussions regarding peace amongst these two groups of people would likely result in greater division and mistrust?

All I have to do is point to the three wars that the arabs started and lost. Not to mention the fact that it was the Brits who were the last ones in there. All the US did was support Israel.
And the underlying causes of these wars?

Osama's problem was the fact that the Saudi Royal Family asked the US to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq and refused the help offered by Bin Laden. That pissed Bin Ladin off and now look at us. Please. I'm looking at the larger picture. The Middle East needs to crack down on the extremists if this crap is going to end. Until they do and they stop telling there people that we are the so called evil empire (we're not even an empire so the term is inaccurate anyway) then and only then, can the terror problem be tackled without the army going in.
Yet the US government fully backs Saudi Arabia, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew airplanes into US buildings were Saudis. How ironic is that? Saudi Arabia represents a greater threat to the US but the US attacked Iraq. A move that has increased terrorism, and mistrust for the US. Osama who?

This is coming from someone who totally supports the Israeli viewpoint, agrees with US vetoes against UN Resolutions that cite Israel, and totally condemns the people of Palestine. I am sure your input into any discussions regarding peace amongst these two groups of people would likely result in greater division and mistrust?

I maybe in support of the US Vetoes but I don't condemn all the Palestinians. I just condemn the Palestinian terrorists. There is a difference. The thing is, you have to start in the Middle East. Since most of the terror attacks have been done by people from the Middle East, it makes sense to start there.

And the underlying causes of these wars?

I'm suprised you don't know. Its over Israel's right to exist. After all they did fight three wars, none of which was started by Israel.

Yet the US government fully backs Saudi Arabia, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew airplanes into US buildings were Saudis. How ironic is that?

Very Ironic actually. I don't even support the Saudi Royal Family. I want to see them eliminated and a democracy in place. However, I don't see that happening in the near future :(

Saudi Arabia represents a greater threat to the US but the US attacked Iraq. A move that has increased terrorism, and mistrust for the US. Osama who?

Osama Bin Ladin! :rolleyes: As for Saudi Arabia being a bigger threat, I can almost agree with you there CH.

Something about this reminds me of: "Gentlemen you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
That's, what, no. 68 on the all time greatest movie quotes list? It's in my paper, but I don't feel like looking for it.

Yeah, if you ignore all the practical ideas for stopping terrorism put forth in this topic, you're right.

Name one idea put forth that wouldn’t require drastically increasing taxes and/or increasing our amount of troops in the region to make sure that funds donated are being used correctly.

Terrorism exists because freedom exists. It's like this. There are two rocks, and two people. They can each take a rock. Person 1 picks up a rock, and suddenly person 2 wants person 1's rock even though there's a perfectly good rock right next to him. Person 2 only wants Person 1's rock because Person 1 wants it.

That's so shallow that paramecia would be beached in it.

Terrorism against America is not based on ideological differences of any kind. We use our military to back up our corporations who are trying to control any valued commodity in the developing world and then commodify those things that aren't marketable (like water).

If the American military left the middle east and took Haliburton and Bechtel and KBR etc. with it then anti-american sentiment would evaporate overnight. Sure, those countries left in the lurch would collapse on each other in some fairly brutal wars, but that's their problem.

Think about this little sci-fi scenario. How would you feel if something that you always got for free suddenly became a pricey commodity. How about if a coal company got the right to polute so badly that every town in America was worse than London in the 1800's? Then started selling filters to keep your house healthy and bottles of air and asthma inhalers, none of which you could live without. Then they get the police to go and arrest people who speak out against this sort of thing. Then some people figure out an easy way to get clean air (maybe community efforts to set up big fans or something), so the coal company has that outlawed too. Crazy right? Couldn't happen. Not only would we not stand for it, but no one would do such a thing. That could only happen in the Simpsons, right?

Well, in Peru, Bechtel got the government to outlaw the collection of rain water in pots. Bechtel was the only source of bottled water and they had polluted the streams so badly that it wasn't fit for human consumption. There isn't anything irrational about hating the government that would support that sort of oppression of your people, and that's what our government is doing.

So I propose the left do one big thing to fight terrorism. Sieze power from the right which inspires it with its ignorance, greed, anger, and arrogance.

Geecka
I'm a she.

Any pictures to prove that/are ya hot, jk doesn't matter.


Yet the US government fully backs Saudi Arabia, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew airplanes into US buildings were Saudis. How ironic is that? Saudi Arabia represents a greater threat to the US but the US attacked Iraq. A move that has increased terrorism, and mistrust for the US. Osama who?


Agreed, we have no business in Iraq. I don't buy "the break it you fix it" argument. You break it you pay for it; not fix it.
After all why should anyone trust the person who broke it to fix it. Paying for it maybe, but not fix.


Many on the Right, including me, feel that the cultural sensitivity of the Left has paralyzed them in defending their own mother culture. They lack constructive optimism in tackling problems but are only content if they are bitching about how the Right is doing it wrong.

Simple, I have a speech prepared, let me get it:


WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed.



Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 will not cease immediately and indefinitely. Though we will be thinking hard about how much we actually send out toward those countries. And possibly reducing the funds a small amount.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect some the money sent previously toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. As the Senatir John Kerry said when he was running.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. We are tired of you allow your people to run illegally to America.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism because we are lowering fundings sent out. But a Nation must at some point look at its own problems and fix them.

God bless America. May you all relax , good night ladies and Gentleman.


That would be best. After Terrorist can't focus anger on us in Iraq, they will leave. If they take over instead than we haev amn afganistan situation. Let me remind you, Afgan lost badly when taliban ruled it.

Either way much better than losing the peace in Iraq. Soldiers make bad policemen.

I have always considered Iraq & the WOT as two different issues (with the same NGO combatants), and IMO we should have fed the House of Saud & its Wahabi keepers to the Pigs a long time ago.

But I'm not in charge.

Well, I mentioned it because the US leadership keeps trying to connect the two, and that's what irritates me.

And I'm glad someone agrees with me that it makes no sense for us to be so cuddly with the government of Saudi Arabia.

Well, in Peru, Bechtel got the government to outlaw the collection of rain water in pots. Bechtel was the only source of bottled water and they had polluted the streams so badly that it wasn't fit for human consumption. There isn't anything irrational about hating the government that would support that sort of oppression of your people, and that's what our government is doing.

Problem with that argument is that Peruvians aren’t attacking the US. Middle Eastern countries are. Besides, Bechtel isn’t the US government, and we can’t control what it is doing in Peru.

Problem with that argument is that Peruvians aren’t attacking the US. Middle Eastern countries are.

We didn't train Peru to do battle with Super Powers. We trained Middle Eastern terrorist networks to do just that. We're giving them ample reason to hate us, are you suggesting that it isn't working?

Besides, Bechtel isn’t the US government, and we can’t control what it is doing in Peru.

Iraq wasn't the US government, we controled what it was doing. And while Bechtel isn't "the government" it is empowered by it. For a corporation to do business in the US it must file articles of incorporation which make it an artificial person subject to American law and the international laws to which we are signatory. They're an American corporation. We tell them "we bombed Iraq for oppressing people, we'll happily revoke your business privilieges in the US and its protectorates and sieze all your American assets if you don't start respecting human rights in the countries where you do business."

Besides which, there's a revolving door in American politics. The Congressmen and cabinet members of today are the international corporate CEO's of tomorrow, and vice-versa. If the corporations are willing to act as facsist aristocracies all over the world and are run by American politicians (both past and future) then what makes you think they're not going to do the same here the second they think they'll get away with it? Because we're Americans?

Agreed, we have no business in Iraq. I don't buy "the break it you fix it" argument. You break it you pay for it; not fix it.
After all why should anyone trust the person who broke it to fix it. Paying for it maybe, but not fix.

Kerry misquoted Powell. And he misquoted pottery stores. Powell said "you break it, you own it." He meant "you break it, you bought it" meaning that if you break it you are responsible for the damage and must pay for it. (that is not pottery barn's policy by the way.)

Bush probably interpreted it to mean "if you destroy it, you get to keep it."

Well, im not going to pretend to be a member of some imaginary political left in America(Which seems to be the focus of this thread), but as a voting democrat, I feel I should give my prefered solution.

An america-first stance on the war on terrorism. What this entails:

*A pulling out of Iraq. The new Iraqi government may buy things from us, at good prices, with loans if needed, and get training by our forces, but US forces leave as soon as physically possible. If it cannot stand up as a nation, it can fall.

*The pulling away from support to Israel. While weapons and technology may still be traded with israel, it will follow the same standards we take with any other nation, from pakistan to canada. No preferential treatment, no assumed protection. Israel too must stand alone in the middle east, to fly or fall as it may.

*Pulling out of Afghanistan. US forces will remain in small numbers, not deployed in units, but only on the request of the afghani government to maintain training of the Afghans.

That said for foreign policy, budgetary issues are also to take place:

*No tax-cuts or military-spending decreases. Congress is to be asked to keep current spending levels, for the war on terror.

*Money will also be taken out of certain military systems, such as the F-22 project, the XM-8 Project, and any remaining funds in systems including but not limited to:The B-2 project(other than maintainance programs), The Osprey program, the Commanche program, and others. All these systems, barring the B-2 program, are to be scrapped, with as much money-saving as possible(and yes, some are already scrapped, but full funding cuts for some).

*The new money will be put into two areas:
A.Re-arming the US military. This includes: Making sure that all APC's and transport vehicles have appropriate armour, all soldiers have appropriate armour, increased airmobile capabilities, decreased naval capabilities, upgrading of national guard and reserve equipment, more money into Research and Development(Except for items already listed as scrapped), Making the M16a4 the standard infantry arm, more work on percision guided missiles, more money into the F-35 program, money into a new fighter-bomber to replace the F-15 at a cost-efficient level, a greater emphasis on artillery and ATGM's, outfitting the continental US with greater Anti aircraft capabilities, buying more systems of the Avenger, Linebacker, and Patriot systems, etcetera.

B.Money towards national security. This means large budget increases to the FBI, and to the CIA, money to the department of homeland security, more money to police departments that seem deficient in numbers, more emphasis on the national guard working with state governments to handle terrorism situations, an updated patriot act that focuses on substantial spying and watching, but less direct action, until links can be signifigantly proven.

Off of Budgetary fixes, general policy changes

*Guantanamo bay will be continued, but each prisoner is entitled to the same rights as US citizens in the US judicial system, except for if and when the geneva convention conflicts with a part of the US judicial system, in which case the Geneva convention is first and foremost followed(in most cases).

*Hands-off policy in the UN. We will vote for most things that do not have to involve us directly, and does not directly oppose our progression as a country.

*Funding to militant forces in the middle east, in countries that we are not in favor with. This will make them focus more on civil issues, allowing us to focus on our civil issues.

*Last part:Huge welfare cuts. Not really terrorism related, but the welfare cuts would be put back into the system, and injected into the US education system, especially in states that have signifigant problems with education. Education reform will be started and funded by this money.

*Last part too:Any military program that is scrapped, will either be replaced, or combined into a new program. We wont be left behind, we just will be in a different direction.

Name one idea put forth that wouldn’t require drastically increasing taxes and/or increasing our amount of troops in the region to make sure that funds donated are being used correctly.

Well, mine, for one.

I guess "blowing people up" is a great way of preventing terrorism then?

I guess "blowing people up" is a great way of preventing terrorism then?

If terrorism means people who are against america, then yes.

If terrorism means people who are against america, then yes.

And by blowing people up, terrorism will magically go away?
I mean, don't you think the reasons for terrorism won't still be there, or even increase?

Someone once said -- actually, it was Cliff Robertson in a 1960's political activism advertisement -- that there are no simple answers to complex problems.
He was wrong.
There may be no pleasant answers to a complex problem, but there is always a simple one, and it can be summed up by a pastoralist's credo: "If you don't have any hoof-and-mouth disease, you won't have any more hoof-and-mouth disease." When this disease appears in one animal, the entire herd is put down.
Consider concepts like "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", and "Let the punishment fit the crime". These are centuries-, even millennia-old truisms that exist in one form or another in every civilized society. It's easy to quip that "an eye for an eye and the world will soon be blind", but do we really think we are the first generation to come up with that rejoinder? Or that thousands of generations before us did not likewise attempt to invalidate the simple natural laws inherent in the notion of "an eye for an eye"? We aren't of course, and in a hundred years someone else will come up with a new clever witticism in an attempt to contradict "An eye for an eye", and that far older, far wiser concept will go right on being as true as it has for the last several thousand years and will continue to be forevermore.
To clarify: The simple and unpleasant answer to the complex problem of terrorism is to be as utterly ruthless in dealing with it as its adherents display in its perpetration.
Example: During the Moro uprisings in the Philippines, muslim Moros would "run amok", charging into crowds of Christians while wielding the legendary razor-sharp kris knife, the idea being that although the assailant would certainly be killed in doing so, dying in the act of killing Christians would qualify them for de facto martyrdom and an automatic place in paradise. The U.S. military governor countered this very effective propagande by ordering that any Moros killed during such an act were to be publicly interred in mass graves with the corpses of slaughtered pigs, pig-blood being anathema to the muslim faith. Is all this true? It's hard to know for sure, but the "running amok" phase of the uprisings ended quite abruptly.
In terms of our latest interaction with Islamic extremists, I will say that, had I the power, I would not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. I would have obliterated it with nuclear weapons. Afghanistan has always been a difficult environment to live in; when I was through, human life there would have been impossible.
Do you think I'm joking? I'm not. Do you think I'm crazy? You're entitled to your opinion. Do you think I don't care about the loss of innocent lives? You're dead wrong.
I care deeply about the loss of more than 3,500 innocent lives, from dozens of nations, on the soil of a country that pours far more money into foreign aid than it does into its military. As for the innocent lives lost in Afghanistan, well, they tolerated the Taliban who harbored Bin-Laden. Granted they have no cultural tradition of self-rule.
Too bad for them.
Please remember that the fundamental tenet of Islam is that Judaism was corrupted, Christianity was corrupted, and so God handed down the Word to Mohammed to set the world right again.
In other words, fundamentalist Islam by its own absolute definition cannot tolerate the existence of any other faith.
Fundamentalist Christianity is hardly less intolerant; only the intervention of rational governmental authority makes it possible for these and other faiths to coexist in places like Turkey and the United States, because the religious institutions in both nations may have influence on their respective governments, but they are forbidden any real political power... so far.
The problem therefore is of course not simply Islam, but any religion. Any belief system that does not stand to reason -- and by definition, no religious system can -- is a ticking time bomb for anyone not sitting in the same pew. So the best and simplest way to deal with religious terrorists, whether a Bin Laden in Afghanistan (or wherever he may be now, probably Kentucky) or a David Koresh in Waco, is to simply obliterate them and, alas, any innocents foolish enough to be around them when the shooting starts or the bombs start falling. After all, if those "innocents" are truly devout adherents of their faith, then Abbot Arnold's famous admonition against what he regarded as heretics -- "Slay all, the Lord will know His own" -- will be turned on its head as those who willingly gave themselves over to the support of those who would kill in the name of their faith are then privileged to die beside them. Surely their respective Gods must welcome such devotion with immediate absolution and ascension into His presence?
If you don't have any terrorists, you won't have any more terrorism.
Goesingthall

And by blowing people up, terrorism will magically go away?
I mean, don't you think the reasons for terrorism won't still be there, or even increase?

There are three possibilities:
1. You blow up all the anti-americans. More come, you blow them up.
2. You blow up all americans. No americans to be against.
3. You havnt blown up enough people. Choose 1 or 2, and repeat.

Really though, I was just playing devils advocate in the worst way.

If you don't have any terrorists, you won't have any more terrorism.

So to extend your pastorialist logic... Blow up the entire population of the world. All the terrorists in the world will be among them.

BTW. you're misinterpreting "eye for an eye..." It doesn't mean if someone put out your eye you should put out his. It means that if someone puts out your eye you're not allowed to take his whole head. To apply that to the war on terrorism...

If someone blows up two of your buildings and 3000 of your people you may not kill any more than 3000 of them, nor more than 2 of their buildings. We've killed many many thousands of Iraqis, who had nothing to do with 9/11. We've killed many Afghans who had little to do with 9/11. We've given money and aid and our leaders have held hands with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, where almost all of the terrorism against us comes from.

Well, im not going to pretend to be a member of some imaginary political left in America(Which seems to be the focus of this thread), but as a voting democrat, I feel I should give my prefered solution.

An america-first stance on the war on terrorism. What this entails:

You vote Democrat, yet you support welfare cuts and don’t want to downsize the military? You know that all the people you vote for think the exact opposite right? By the way, nice plan.

The U.S. military governor countered this very effective propagande by ordering that any Moros killed during such an act were to be publicly interred in mass graves with the corpses of slaughtered pigs, pig-blood being anathema to the muslim faith. Is all this true? It's hard to know for sure, but the "running amok" phase of the uprisings ended quite abruptly.

Do you know who that Governor was? None other than General Douglass Macarthur. He was also extremely effective in the Japanese occupation years later.

If you don't have any terrorists, you won't have any more terrorism.

Exactly. :D

You vote Democrat, yet you support welfare cuts and don’t want to downsize the military? You know that all the people you vote for think the exact opposite right? By the way, nice plan.

I disagree with things that both parties stand for. Im simply more willing to have a democratic president and a republican senate, than the opposite way around, or even worse, controll of both by one party.

You (Chellis) vote Democrat, yet you support welfare cuts and don’t want to downsize the military? You know that all the people you vote for think the exact opposite right? By the way, nice plan.

You saw the post right? He's a Dixiecrat.

The problem therefore is of course not simply Islam, but any religion. Any belief system that does not stand to reason -- and by definition, no religious system can -- is a ticking time bomb for anyone not sitting in the same pew. So the best and simplest way to deal with religious terrorists, whether a Bin Laden in Afghanistan (or wherever he may be now, probably Kentucky) or a David Koresh in Waco, is to simply obliterate them and, alas, any innocents foolish enough to be around them when the shooting starts or the bombs start falling. After all, if those "innocents" are truly devout adherents of their faith, then Abbot Arnold's famous admonition against what he regarded as heretics -- "Slay all, the Lord will know His own" -- will be turned on its head as those who willingly gave themselves over to the support of those who would kill in the name of their faith are then privileged to die beside them. Surely their respective Gods must welcome such devotion with immediate absolution and ascension into His presence?
If you don't have any terrorists, you won't have any more terrorism.
Goesingthall

So it's time to nuke Virginia then? And wherever Jerry Falwell is? Seriously, doesn't advocacy of genocide count as trolling?

In any country in the world when poverty and unemployment rise people turn to fundamentalist religions and extremist political parties that claim to have all the answers. If there's an extremist political fundamentalist church that claims to have all the answers then so much the better for them.

That's why the Fundies here endorse Republicans. They know that poverty increases when social spending is cut and when people have nowhere else to turn they turn to the Church, or to crime. And then the crime makes everyone else turn to Churches. Churches know that the Devil scares more people into the pews than Christ could ever lure there.

The way to stop terrorism is to stop bleeding these countries dry and then chastizing them for being poor. Hold American corporations to task and don't let foreign ones do business here if they engage in similar practices (debeers anyone?). People don't blow themselves up with truck bombs if they've got a decent shot at a peaceful life on Earth. If they don't have that then they'll latch on to any straw that's offered to them, no matter how frail.

I disagree with things that both parties stand for. Im simply more willing to have a democratic president and a republican senate, than the opposite way around, or even worse, controll of both by one party.

Ah, cool.
Personally, I wish we had more parties that could actually get elected. The two party system is awful, and I don’t think it is what the constitution is most compatible with.

On Topic:
If someone blows up two of your buildings and 3000 of your people you may not kill any more than 3000 of them, nor more than 2 of their buildings.

So, you would have been for randomly launching cruise missiles at two Afghani buildings, while somehow killing 3000 Afghanis without destroying another building? That seems a little weird.

You saw the post right? He's a Dixiecrat.

No, im not a Dixiecrat.

Ah, cool.
Personally, I wish we had more parties that could actually get elected. The two party system is awful, and I don’t think it is what the constitution is most compatible with.


I agree, but with media(in general) and the US education system, most americans seem to not be able to believe in something unless its popular, its easy, and it sounds good. And 3 parties makes it harder. Thats why you have to pick your battles.


On Topic:


So, you would have been for randomly launching cruise missiles at two Afghani buildings, while somehow killing 3000 Afghanis without destroying another building? That seems a little weird.

To be fair, it would be mostly killing Saudi's, because mostly Saudi's perpetrated the attacks.

this is quite simple really, it seems that left wing politicians just want to disagree with everything that republicans say a good example of this is when the house majority leader under the clinton presidency was for privatizing social security, but as soon as bush supported it he said it was wrong..

this is quite simple really...

If it was so simple, it would have been said before, and widely known. You are just someone who oversimplifies things with false info. Now go find some rope.

this is quite simple really, it seems that left wing politicians just want to disagree with everything that republicans say a good example of this is when the house majority leader under the clinton presidency was for privatizing social security, but as soon as bush supported it he said it was wrong..

Unlike the other way around?

To be fair, it would be mostly killing Saudi's, because mostly Saudi's perpetrated the attacks.

Well, if you want to get technical you would have to destroy a two Saudi Arabian buildings and kill about 2763 residents of Saudi Arabia. You would then have to damage, not permanently, buildings in Lebanon, Egypt and the U.A.E. (think the Pentagon). Next, you would have to kill 700 U.A.E. citizens and 233 Egyptian and Lebanese residents. Heck, you don’t even have to make sure they actually live in those countries, using the same logic as the 9-11 terrorists, they just have to be in the country at the time. I rounded down those figures, so I guess that leaves room for Bin Laden (who is technically claimed by no country).

Well, mine, for one.

Ah, of course. The insanely naïve idea. What if the terrorist is able to slip through the cracks in the system (no bureaucracy is perfect) and they commit a terrorist attack? What if you are monitoring somebody, but their plan is to run into a crowd and randomly slaughter people with a knife, like in the Philippines? You can’t possibly stop them in time, unless you want to monitor them 24-7, which would require an extremely large amount of funds, especially if you don’t want him to know he is being watched. Not to mention, that it defies the rule of law. What other criminals are you going to let go? Why should only the terrorists get off. What about attempted murderers, US citizens that plot against the government and people that commit identity fraud? Notice that I previously stated there wasn’t any practical ideas from the left.

Edit: Except Chellis, if you consider yourself left, that is.

I maybe in support of the US Vetoes but I don't condemn all the Palestinians. I just condemn the Palestinian terrorists. There is a difference. The thing is, you have to start in the Middle East. Since most of the terror attacks have been done by people from the Middle East, it makes sense to start there.
I agree, starting in the Middle East is absolutely the best plan. However, you don't go to the negotiating table insisting that the root cause of all the problems stems from Arab nations. If you can't see the Israeli part in this fiasco, then you would fail as a broker of peace. Take off the blinders.

I'm suprised you don't know. Its over Israel's right to exist. After all they did fight three wars, none of which was started by Israel.
Once again, this is debatable. What are the root causes? If YOU were negotiating a peace treaty you would probably end up with one like The Peace Treaty of Versailles. And you know what happened after that dismal failure?

Very Ironic actually. I don't even support the Saudi Royal Family. I want to see them eliminated and a democracy in place. However, I don't see that happening in the near future :(
And I suppose the main reason for that probably stems from the cosy relationship that the Bush family has with the ruling Sauds? That, and the fact that the US has a severe dependence on Saudi oil. Perhaps the relationship will ease as the US gains a stronger controlling interest in Iraqi oil.

Osama Bin Ladin! :rolleyes: As for Saudi Arabia being a bigger threat, I can almost agree with you there CH.
Well, it was Saudis who crashed into the seeming invincibilty of America.

I agree, starting in the Middle East is absolutely the best plan. However, you don't go to the negotiating table insisting that the root cause of all the problems stems from Arab nations. If you can't see the Israeli part in this fiasco, then you would fail as a broker of peace. Take off the blinders.

Considering all that Israel has done was in reality, self-defense. Anyway, we can debate that another day. I remember a certain PM of Israel offering 98% (I think) of the land BACK. If I was Arafat, I would've taken that deal and run for the hills. He rejected it. That was the best deal he was going to get and he rejected it, STUNNING the world when word got out. I'm not saying its all the Arabs fault. I'm not even blaming all the arabs. The only arabs I'm blaming are the terrorists that are blowing themselves up. They also seem to blow themselves up when Peace was beginning to happen thus forcing Israel to retaliate. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Israel stops retaliating. That might be interesting to see.

Once again, this is debatable. What are the root causes? If YOU were negotiating a peace treaty you would probably end up with one like The Peace Treaty of Versailles. And you know what happened after that dismal failure?

Yes I do. Hitler rampaged over Europe, taking Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine Etc. Then he got tossed out of Russia then France and killed himself when he lost World War II. Again though, I think the Israel should offer the deal they offered to Arafat. This time, I'm sure they'll take it and not reject it.

And I suppose the main reason for that probably stems from the cosy relationship that the Bush family has with the ruling Sauds?

I'm not even going to go here.

That, and the fact that the US has a severe dependence on Saudi oil. Perhaps the relationship will ease as the US gains a stronger controlling interest in Iraqi oil.

Or we can start drilling off the coasts of Florida, North and South Carolina, the Gulf Coast and Alasak. Gee, what about those place? We can probably be richer than the Middle East.

Well, it was Saudis who crashed into the seeming invincibilty of America.

As apart of the Al Qaeda network. Anyway, I don't even like the Saudi Royal Family and I just want to see them gone but I don't want to see a fundamentalist Regime take hold there either.

I took an extensive set of classes on this very issue, and the #1 problem that has caused this terrorism is the exclusionist stance of Israel as far as citizenship and sovereignty goes with the Palestinians. Not to mention that in the past (and the largest losses in this conflict go to) the Palestinians were targeted as military targets, and predatory politics and terrorism from the Israeli rightist groups, along with US support for these groups, has caused America to be viewed as the bastard enemy, helping the oppressive (and they most definitely are) Israelis to screw over all their neighbors, along with their Palestinian work force, all because Israel is supposed to be the "Jewish Biblical Homeland" (despite the fact that the Palestinians lived there before the jewish immigrants started moving in.)

The political left's solution to this? Stop helping the Israelis oppress the Palestinians. The terrorism would stop dead in its tracks.

Corneliu,
The Israelis made no such concessions, in fact, anything they have responded to lately as far as sovereignty goes has been a direct cause of the unarmed protests of the Intifada. Terrorism isn't used as a solution or a means of persuasion, it is meant to extract revenge from the rightist groups that have actually killed more people than the terrorists have. Well, and the Israeli shelling of refugee camps and things, killing thousands, not to mention giving Israelis 6 times the water resources that the Palestinians get. It's the exclusionary politics and internalized racism in the government. That is where the terrorism has all stemmed from.

And actually, the Israelis were the first group to start using terrorism in this conflict.

WB SBMM. I've missed you.

The political left's solution to this? Stop helping the Israelis oppress the Palestinians. The terrorism would stop dead in its tracks.

How will it stop it dead in its tracks? If anything, it'll encourage it MORE. Why? The US isn't there to protect it. More people will gang up on Israel. Think we have a problem now?

I've missed you too, I brushed up on military intelligence, though I still maintain my stance that if America and the EU were comparatively armed, the EU would win for geographical reasons. (Unless you brought the conflict to the shores of America, which would be a different story)

How will it stop it dead in its tracks? If anything, it'll encourage it MORE. Why? The US isn't there to protect it. More people will gang up on Israel. Think we have a problem now?


I've thought of that one, but Israel has the military might to maintain it's own security. I mean, they kicked the shit out of the Arabs in the '67 war, and they were fighting against Soviet-backed troops. Israel just needs to liberalize it's stance on the Palestinians, though this is highly unlikely. Though necessity remains the mother of all invention, and it would be necessary for them to be nicer to their neighbors.

I've missed you too, I brushed up on military intelligence, though I still maintain my stance that if America and the EU were comparatively armed, the EU would win for geographical reasons. (Unless you brought the conflict to the shores of America, which would be a different story)

Don't see how that is possible. But that's for that thread :D

I've thought of that one, but Israel has the military might to maintain it's own security. I mean, they kicked the shit out of the Arabs in the '67 war, and they were fighting against Soviet-backed troops.

Not to mention they kicked their butt in 1948, 6 day war, and the Yom Kuppure(Sp?) war too.

Israel just needs to liberalize it's stance on the Palestinians, though this is highly unlikely.

I hate to do this because of my reputation but I have to agree with you there. They do need to lighten up and I think they will once things begin to settle down. Sometimes when your fighting, you do unorthodox things. I'm not going to excuse some of their behavior but when you are actually fighting a war, you do what you have to do to win. But that doesn't give the Palestinian terrorists the right to blow up Israeli civilians.

Though necessity remains the mother of all invention, and it would be necessary for them to be nicer to their neighbors.

I agree with you here as well.

Don't see how that is possible. But that's for that thread :D


Oh come on, you don't think the Europeans have a significant advantage geographically? Even with a military half as large, they are still much more portable (as far as their own continental landmass goes)

Not to mention they kicked their butt in 1948, 6 day war, and the Yom Kuppure(Sp?) war too.



I hate to do this because of my reputation but I have to agree with you there. They do need to lighten up and I think they will once things begin to settle down. Sometimes when your fighting, you do unorthodox things. I'm not going to excuse some of their behavior but when you are actually fighting a war, you do what you have to do to win. But that doesn't give the Palestinian terrorists the right to blow up Israeli civilians.



I agree with you here as well.



Not a bad thing to agree once and awhile. Most people are generally cool living next to their neighbors, as long as they don't fuck with each other. But the Israelis have excluded the Palestinians as citizens, imposed special taxes, bulldozed their homes, not to mention driven most of them to become refugees living outside of their homeland. It sounds more like Israel's fault to me, or at least the Israeli electorate (really the problem was the Zionist movement that sought to expell all Palestinians without asking the essential question of "Shit! What do we do with all these poor people who lost their homes to our immigration policies?")

Not a bad thing to agree once and awhile. Most people are generally cool living next to their neighbors, as long as they don't fuck with each other. But the Israelis have excluded the Palestinians as citizens, imposed special taxes, bulldozed their homes, not to mention driven most of them to become refugees living outside of their homeland. It sounds more like Israel's fault to me, or at least the Israeli electorate (really the problem was the Zionist movement that sought to expell all Palestinians without asking the essential question of "Shit! What do we do with all these poor people who lost their homes to our immigration policies?")

In someways, I agree with you but you also have to remember what started alot of this mess. The other arab nations, prior to launching the 1948 War, Asked the Palestinians to leave Israel. The problem also is that when they did, they expected to win and they didn't. They left the Palestinian refugees high and dry. The nations could've helped these people but they didn't.

Yes, I agree that bulldozing homes of Palestinians isn't a great move on Israels part. I also just heard recently that Israeli Settlement homes are going to be bulldozed. Those people aren't happy either.

Israel is trying to make amends here and I commend them for trying to make amends. The question remains though, is this a start to full scale peace? Luckily, the cease-fire is holding. Hopefully it can hold and a peace accord signed that benefits all sides. Palestine gets their state and the State of Israel can also exist.

Yeah, things will be looking up from here. I think the end to this conflict will probably occur within the next 10 years, the only question, will America become a significant player towards sovereignty? This would probably be a more effective way to curb terrorism than the war on Iraq. If Americans aren't thought of as the enemy, then why the hell would you want to blow them up?

Yes, I agree that bulldozing homes of Palestinians isn't a great move on Israels part. I also just heard recently that Israeli Settlement homes are going to be bulldozed. Those people aren't happy either.

Israel is trying to make amends here and I commend them for trying to make amends. The question remains though, is this a start to full scale peace? Luckily, the cease-fire is holding. Hopefully it can hold and a peace accord signed that benefits all sides. Palestine gets their state and the State of Israel can also exist.
Except there are several fiercly Zionist Jews high up in the American political system who will safeguard Israel from any major threat due to peace negotiations. Some Zionists claim that they have a right to all the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. If we truly wanted peace in the Israel/Palestine situation, we'd create a seperate nation of Palestine--what was there originally--and the two groups could share the holy sites in Jerusalem. Possibly by making that a soverign city much like the Vatican.

Our enemys can love us to death.

Many on the Right, including me, feel that the cultural sensitivity of the Left has paralyzed them in defending their own mother culture. They lack constructive optimism in tackling problems but are only content if they are bitching about how the Right is doing it wrong.
...I may not be right in my opinion so those on the Left who have constructive optimism about how to stop or curb Islamic terrorists please educate me on your facts to the solution.

The left do have a way, its called get down on your knees and grovel for mercy.
Fuk em, behind all their high moralling and idiotic reasoning, the left are just made up of gutless scum.

I so look forward to the day when Bush sics the Army on to the left in America for the nations good, yes! bring on the coup!!!!

Yeah, things will be looking up from here. I think the end to this conflict will probably occur within the next 10 years, the only question, will America become a significant player towards sovereignty? This would probably be a more effective way to curb terrorism than the war on Iraq. If Americans aren't thought of as the enemy, then why the hell would you want to blow them up?

The other problem you have is the Madrassas (sp?)! They have been teaching that America is Evil. If we do get a two state solution (still possible), what is going to happen in the madrassas? They have to change too and that is going to be even harder to do.

Neither the political left or the political right can stop terrorism. Only people on both sides cutting the BS can stop it.

Here's the thing:

1. Right, it's not all "Bomb them and we win!" No, no, no. " "The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins."- Kierkegaard.

2. Left, it's not all "Stop supporting Israel, stop bombing them, and stop their poverty and we win!" No, no, no. Israel- while it has human rights abuses- has a right to exist. If we don't bomb them, they'll bomb us. While poverty is a root cause, it is not the only root cause.


Look, the only way to end this is to improve our image, which, yes, includes fairer dealings in Israel, and stopping propping up the Saudi Royal Family. They're not the type of people we want to be associated with, anyway, they're murderers and tyrants. It includes treating the Arab World as an equal.

But, in the interim, we can't all become glowified by a dirty bomb, so agressive military action is sometimes needed. This is a short-term strategy to let us survive to implement our long-term strategy.

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides.

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.

Terrorism can be stopped, but not with the knife. It can only be stopped by ending poverty in other countries, this will slow the spread, then if countries like us, the US stop going around the world doing what we did in Iraq than even if there are terrorists they wont attack us. But among all, we cant afford to electing progressive conservatives like Bush. Electing arogant leaders like that just proves the arogance of so many of his followers. Sure you can have pride in your country. But when you start running around other countries screaming "USA!" problems start.

ok lets look at the IRA as an example of terrorism dealt with properly

A load of Irishmen wanted northern island to unite with Eire, Britain said no so they attacked British interests, Britain cracks down, sends in the army, sends in the SAS, problem gets worse, recently Britain starts to talk to these so called terrorists and reach a compromise in the good friday agreement, result: terrorists slowly disarming, peace in NI, IRA apologising for past murders, everyone happy more or less, this is how the civilised world deals with people who dont share our point of view, we talk to them,

we no NOT, invade their countries to "flush out" the evil terrorist scum, invade countries which had no connection to them and declaring a global war on terror making far out statements like "if you're not with us you're against us" and shoving countries we dont like the look of into a fabricated "axis of evil"

I spit on US foriegn policy, it is disgusting that they can be allowe to get away with it just because they're all powerful, the UN needs the balls, not the mention the military backing to smack the US right down

Tograna, negotiations only work when both sides are willing to talk. Al Qaeda made it quite clear that they won't negotiate. Since they are unwilling to talk, you won't be able to negotiate with them. If they were willing to talk then maybe negotiations will work.

Simple fact is that sometimes force is necessary. It should be used as a last resort yes, but when you can see that negotiations aren't working, its time to relieve the diplomats with the military. Negotiations work with some but not with others.

The IRA was willing to negotiate when the British Army came storming in. Then they started to talk. I'm glad I haven't heard of bombings in Northern Ireland lately. I'm glad that that problem is trying to be resoloved peacefully. To bad Al Qaeda won't do the same.

Except there are several fiercly Zionist Jews high up in the American political system who will safeguard Israel from any major threat due to peace negotiations. Some Zionists claim that they have a right to all the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. If we truly wanted peace in the Israel/Palestine situation, we'd create a seperate nation of Palestine--what was there originally--and the two groups could share the holy sites in Jerusalem. Possibly by making that a soverign city much like the Vatican.

I like that idea.

Would they have a Pope?

Neither the political left or the political right can stop terrorism. Only people on both sides cutting the BS can stop it.

Here's the thing:

1. Right, it's not all "Bomb them and we win!" No, no, no. " "The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins."- Kierkegaard.

2. Left, it's not all "Stop supporting Israel, stop bombing them, and stop their poverty and we win!" No, no, no. Israel- while it has human rights abuses- has a right to exist. If we don't bomb them, they'll bomb us. While poverty is a root cause, it is not the only root cause.

I support Isreal an I'm a lefty. If we don't bomb them, they won't bomb us actually.
Poverty is not the only root, but we should focus on one thing at a time. Splitting one focus lowers chances.

After all we messed with Osama in past so he messed with us in future. It wasn't a random airplane attack.

Not that it was right, but at least it wasn't for no reason.

Tograna, negotiations only work when both sides are willing to talk. Al Qaeda made it quite clear that they won't negotiate. Since they are unwilling to talk, you won't be able to negotiate with them. If they were willing to talk then maybe negotiations will work.

Simple fact is that sometimes force is necessary. It should be used as a last resort yes, but when you can see that negotiations aren't working, its time to relieve the diplomats with the military. Negotiations work with some but not with others.

The IRA was willing to negotiate when the British Army came storming in. Then they started to talk. I'm glad I haven't heard of bombings in Northern Ireland lately. I'm glad that that problem is trying to be resoloved peacefully. To bad Al Qaeda won't do the same.

yes thats true, but you assume that all AQ bombers are brainwashed crazies with nothing in them but hate, its simply not true while yes they might be different in terms of approachability than the IRA there is always a way to talk while yes using force to prevent specific terrorist act is understandable but invading a country because you think they might be plotting against you, if that attitude had prevailed in the cold war we'd all be dead by now. There is always a way to talk, perhaps the actual bombers are brainwashed manmen with nothing but hate in them but the leaders are clealy men with an agenda they want something and while I'm not saying we should give them everything they want there has to be some kind of middle ground that is acceptable for everyone such as US troops withdrawing from the middle east, the reason Bin Laden gave up a life as a member of Saudi's ruling elite is because he wanted the US out of his country which is fair enough I think the only reason they were there in the first place was because they were propping up a dictatorship as the US has done so many times before

Ah, of course. The insanely naïve idea. What if the terrorist is able to slip through the cracks in the system (no bureaucracy is perfect) and they commit a terrorist attack? What if you are monitoring somebody, but their plan is to run into a crowd and randomly slaughter people with a knife, like in the Philippines? You can’t possibly stop them in time, unless you want to monitor them 24-7, which would require an extremely large amount of funds, especially if you don’t want him to know he is being watched. Not to mention, that it defies the rule of law. What other criminals are you going to let go? Why should only the terrorists get off. What about attempted murderers, US citizens that plot against the government and people that commit identity fraud? Notice that I previously stated there wasn’t any practical ideas from the left.


Ha, labeling an idea that goes against your ideology naive does not a refutation make.

Yes, all these things would require money, but do you not think that the amount of money freed by ending this ridiculous "world police" tangent would be quite enough?

I so look forward to the day when Bush sics the Army on to the left in America for the nations good, yes! bring on the coup!!!!

Oh yes, let's start a civil war. Let's try to expel the people who try to stand up for the very ideals America stands on. Woohoo! No wonder much of the left thinks leaving the country is a valid option.

Ha, labeling an idea that goes against your ideology naive does not a refutation make.

Yes, all these things would require money, but do you not think that the amount of money freed by ending this ridiculous "world police" tangent would be quite enough?


Seems that it would be enough. Less funding to Israel and less oil-company dominance of Saudi politics would also be helpful.

Oh yes, let's start a civil war. Let's try to expel the people who try to stand up for the very ideals America stands on. Woohoo! No wonder much of the left thinks leaving the country is a valid option.

And yet they never actually leave. :)

And yet they never actually leave. :)


I would if I could, but it's incredibly expensive, and we don't want to see the horrible racist, sexist, homophobic puritan country that America would become. We're here to save America from the conservatives.

Why is there the notion that those on the left are not prepared to go to war?

It's really just that we on the left like wars that can be won and that have a point.

Why is there the notion that those on the left are not prepared to go to war?

It's really just that we on the left like wars that can be won and that have a point.
Shh, logic isn't allowed in Nation States :)

Shh, logic isn't allowed in Nation States :)

I just hate how the definition of Left/Liberal/Democrat has come to mean anything and everything that does not fit into Republican point of view. It seems to me that Republicans view the world in the following categories: Republican, Liberal, Terrorist, Homosexual or French.

I just hate how the definition of Left/Liberal/Democrat has come to mean anything and everything that does not fit into Republican point of view. It seems to me that Republicans view the world in the following categories: Republican, Liberal, Terrorist, Homosexual or French.
Of course, you could see it from the Libertarian POV:

Liberty, Big Government Republican, Big Government Democrat, Big Government Socialist, No Government Anarchist, Religious Government/Terrorist and French. :p

I would if I could, but it's incredibly expensive, and we don't want to see the horrible racist, sexist, homophobic puritan country that America would become. We're here to save America from the conservatives.
Exactly. Without liberals America would be a 24/7 sweatshop of laborors working in unlit factories with people mysteriously showing up in pieces inside meat cans with like 99.999999999999% of the wealth in the hands of about ten people. Church attendence would be compulsory, it would be illegal to have an abortion--if they could even afford it--yet capital punishment would be used for all crimes--convicted or not. I love my country too much to leave only conservatives behind to ruin it and I'm sick of them saying "well if you don't like it, get out." I say, "if you don't like the company, get out." LOLZ!

So to extend your pastorialist logic... Blow up the entire population of the world. All the terrorists in the world will be among them.

BTW. you're misinterpreting "eye for an eye..." It doesn't mean if someone put out your eye you should put out his. It means that if someone puts out your eye you're not allowed to take his whole head. To apply that to the war on terrorism...

If someone blows up two of your buildings and 3000 of your people you may not kill any more than 3000 of them, nor more than 2 of their buildings. We've killed many many thousands of Iraqis, who had nothing to do with 9/11. We've killed many Afghans who had little to do with 9/11. We've given money and aid and our leaders have held hands with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, where almost all of the terrorism against us comes from.

Oh, nonsense, I never said any such thing.
Why is it that it's always Liberals who take a perfectly valid concept -- social welfare relief, for example, or obliterating fanatics -- and extend it beyond all reasonability to an absurd extreme? Such twisted sophistry does not invalidate the original concept, only the credibility of the person making so childish an extrapolation.
This was not a rhetorical question; the answer is because Liberals are, like actors, created by teaching students to trust their emotional responses as being valid for rational decision-making. Again, it is the overextension of a decent enough proposition -- leaven your decisions with a merciful temperament -- which results in a horde of touchy-feely whiners insisting all the whole world's woes can be solved with a hug.
Rationality. Reasonability. Accountability.
For goodness' sake, put down this week's Oprah Book Club selection, put away your religious tracts and use your rational capacity for THINKing to make a decision. This "listen to your heart" nonsense is lovely for picking out what flowers to buy your significant other, but absolutely worthless when making national policy or voting.
And by the way, I don't know where YOU heard that interpretation of "an eye for an eye", but I strongly suggest you hit the books -- even a bible if you must -- because you are dead wrong in wht you believe it to mean, as shown by your silly example of reducing moral justice for a terrorist act to a numbers game of counting corpses.
And people claim conservatives are "heartless"...
Goesingthall

Oh, nonsense, I never said any such thing.
Why is it that it's always Liberals who take a perfectly valid concept -- social welfare relief, for example, or obliterating fanatics -- and extend it beyond all reasonability to an absurd extreme? Such twisted sophistry does not invalidate the original concept, only the credibility of the person making so childish an extrapolation.
This was not a rhetorical question; the answer is because Liberals are, like actors, created by teaching students to trust their emotional responses as being valid for rational decision-making. Again, it is the overextension of a decent enough proposition -- leaven your decisions with a merciful temperament -- which results in a horde of touchy-feely whiners insisting all the whole world's woes can be solved with a hug.
Rationality. Reasonability. Accountability.
For goodness' sake, put down this week's Oprah Book Club selection, put away your religious tracts and use your rational capacity for THINKing to make a decision. This "listen to your heart" nonsense is lovely for picking out what flowers to buy your significant other, but absolutely worthless when making national policy or voting.
And by the way, I don't know where YOU heard that interpretation of "an eye for an eye", but I strongly suggest you hit the books -- even a bible if you must -- because you are dead wrong in wht you believe it to mean, as shown by your silly example of reducing moral justice for a terrorist act to a numbers game of counting corpses.
And people claim conservatives are "heartless"...
Goesingthall

You're very wrong about who you think are the more emotional thinkers. It is conservatives who respond to calls for reasoned international policy with accusations of... what was the latest one? "Liberals want to put Osama bin Laden in therapy?" Conservatives are convinced by politicians who appeal to their fear, their patriotism, and their fear of being seen as unpatriotic. That's why you never hear a liberal say "if you don't like America then why don't you just get the hell out?"

Look at it rationally.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Afghanistan was only tangentally related to 9/11.
The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian and Saudi Arabia follows a domestic policy that encourages their people to hate us.
Our president has held a photo-op of him holding hands with a Saudi prince.

George Bush is a personal ally of our national enemy and an enemy of those who are fairly irrelevant to our domestic affairs.

And as for eye for an eye. It is mitagatory, not compulsory. Ask any biblical scholar who is not a Southern Baptist or Pat Robertson's insane brand of pentacostalism. When Christ came along he made it even more mitagatory. I think Bush has some Christian leanings, right? The whole "if a man strikes your cheek then turn him the others" is proceeded by saying "the law says an eye for an eye, but I say to you..." So the Christian interpretation would be even more liberal than the OC Saducee version in that it would mean that the government would ask "hmmm, they're clearly very strongly motivated to act against us. Maybe we should find out why." A liberal government wouldn't come up with any purile emotional crap like "they hate our freedom" they'd see that they're living in squalor and we're partly to blame. We should do something to make them less hateful towards us, not something to make them hate us more in the hopes that enough of it will make them unable to act on their hatred.

You follow an emotional agenda of revenge and glory.
Liberals follow a rational agenda of self presrevation.

Also, I'd like to point out that Bush himself has cited "faith" and "instinct" for his rationale for going to war with Iraq. That's exactly the sort of touchy feely garbage you're complaining about. Except instead of appealing to emotions like compassion and honesty he's appealing to emotions like greed and arrogance. And you're responding to them. It's not courage to send other people to war in your name. It's arrogance and cowardice. Cowardice because you're not going, arrogance because you think it reflects well on you that other people are.

You're very wrong about who you think are the more emotional thinkers. It is conservatives who respond to calls for reasoned international policy with accusations of... what was the latest one? "Liberals want to put Osama bin Laden in therapy?" Conservatives are convinced by politicians who appeal to their fear, their patriotism, and their fear of being seen as unpatriotic. That's why you never hear a liberal say "if you don't like America then why don't you just get the hell out?"

Look at it rationally.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Afghanistan was only tangentally related to 9/11.
The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian and Saudi Arabia follows a domestic policy that encourages their people to hate us.
Our president has held a photo-op of him holding hands with a Saudi prince.

George Bush is a personal ally of our national enemy and an enemy of those who are fairly irrelevant to our domestic affairs.

And as for eye for an eye. It is mitagatory, not compulsory. Ask any biblical scholar who is not a Southern Baptist or Pat Robertson's insane brand of pentacostalism. When Christ came along he made it even more mitagatory. I think Bush has some Christian leanings, right? The whole "if a man strikes your cheek then turn him the others" is proceeded by saying "the law says an eye for an eye, but I say to you..." So the Christian interpretation would be even more liberal than the OC Saducee version in that it would mean that the government would ask "hmmm, they're clearly very strongly motivated to act against us. Maybe we should find out why." A liberal government wouldn't come up with any purile emotional crap like "they hate our freedom" they'd see that they're living in squalor and we're partly to blame. We should do something to make them less hateful towards us, not something to make them hate us more in the hopes that enough of it will make them unable to act on their hatred.

You follow an emotional agenda of revenge and glory.
Liberals follow a rational agenda of self presrevation.
An excellent post that is right on the money!! :)

I don't think anyone can stop terrorism. Terrorism isn't rational, it isn't reasonable so pacifist methods aren't going to work. On the other side of the coin, it isn't reasonable, it isn't rational so displays of force are only going to enrage the terrorists more, (possibly aiding in their recruitment) and encourage more terrorism. I don't think we can win. And in that situation I'd prefer to "lose" knowing I've caused the minimal loss of human life, for both sides.

I have no good answer, but I don't think waging war on a noun was a good idea.

Hmmm interesting conclusion. You accept defeat before you start, and roll over die? Or are you just gambling that you will not be one of the victims and just accept asimilation? My god I knew our society had gotten weak but this is just unbelievable.

Why is there the notion that those on the left are not prepared to go to war?

It's really just that we on the left like wars that can be won and that have a point.

Like Vietnam? The Bay of Pigs? Somilia? or do you prefer those really tough challanges like crashing into private homes and kidnapping little kids from their beds so you can give them to Castro? You won that one you know. YaY!
Maybe it's because those on the left have a huge portion of their base that happen to be comple cowards. That tends to happen when you try promise everything to everyone and can deliver nothing.

Exactly. Without liberals America would be a 24/7 sweatshop of laborors working in unlit factories with people mysteriously showing up in pieces inside meat cans with like 99.999999999999% of the wealth in the hands of about ten people. Church attendence would be compulsory, it would be illegal to have an abortion--if they could even afford it--yet capital punishment would be used for all crimes--convicted or not. I love my country too much to leave only conservatives behind to ruin it and I'm sick of them saying "well if you don't like it, get out." I say, "if you don't like the company, get out." LOLZ!

Bet! I say test it out. All Liberals kill yourself, we're working on a study here. If we lose, well, we'll kill ouselves. Well, we'll consider killing ourselves too. Maybe

:rolleyes:

Apparently you did miss the logic. That's ok. I didnt expect you too. Liberals never see the logic behind the most simplist of suggestions.

We really need to make some major changes in education. Something really difficult like...return it to local control and end lifetime tenures!

Liverbreath']We really need to make some major changes in education. Something really difficult like...return it to local control and end lifetime tenures!

Hear, hear.

Liverbreath']Like Vietnam? The Bay of Pigs? Somilia? or do you prefer those really tough challanges like crashing into private homes and kidnapping little kids from their beds so you can give them to Castro? You won that one you know. YaY!
Maybe it's because those on the left have a huge portion of their base that happen to be comple cowards. That tends to happen when you try promise everything to everyone and can deliver nothing.
I can name a few cowards on your side, too. Should we start with a big one? How about Bush? You know, "I joined the National Guard but all I got were these lousy Dental Records."

Oh yes, let's start a civil war. Let's try to expel the people who try to stand up for the very ideals America stands on. Woohoo! No wonder much of the left thinks leaving the country is a valid option.

A civil war? Hah! Dont flatter yourselves with the idea that the people of the left would even mount a challenge.
You would be rounded up at gunpoint and simply forced to leave.
If you fought back, you would one: be violating your own principles of non violence, and two: massacred.
Leave the country and good riddance you cowards.

A civil war? Hah! Dont flatter yourselves with the idea that the people of the left would even mount a challenge.
You would be rounded up at gunpoint and simply forced to leave.
If you fought back, you would one: be violating your own principles of non violence, and two: massacred.
Leave the country and good riddance you cowards.


Nah, they would fight. They only support pacifism, because it’s a convenient way of opposing the right and preventing progress.

Ihatevacations']I know EXACTLY how to end terrorism. Get a police car and tie a giant bull horn to the top like the flipping blues brothers and go around the places broadcasting propaganda, and you know WHY this will win? If Bush stops being an ignorant dumbfuck and stops insulting muslims and the middle east, he can use his propaganda machine to win the war with little more than some gas and alot of batteries. The shit they pumped out to win the 2004 election would've made Goebbels proud and if put to the right uses would destroy terrorism in the middle east

Hear Hear!

A civil war? Hah! Dont flatter yourselves with the idea that the people of the left would even mount a challenge.
You would be rounded up at gunpoint and simply forced to leave.
If you fought back, you would one: be violating your own principles of non violence, and two: massacred.
Leave the country and good riddance you cowards.
Democrats are hardly non-violent and Liberals are not pacifists... I'm a pacifist and liberal. Those are two different things. Its like I'm white and I'm an Aquarius. That doesn't mean white = Aquarius.

pac·i·fism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.


lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

dem·o·crat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-krt)
n.
An advocate of democracy.
Democrat A member of the Democratic Party

Why is there the notion that those on the left are not prepared to go to war?

It's really just that we on the left like wars that can be won and that have a point.

I wouldn't say that- Vietnam. Korea. Somalia. Haiti.

Lobbing a cruise missile at an aspirin factory doesn't make for waging war, nor does it equate to victory (even when it hits the coordinates.)
Nobody really knows if the U.S. could have won in Vietnam-but the micromanagement from LBJ's Administration, ridiculous rules of engagement that left the Hanoi docks untouched while millions were spent dropping ordnance on rice-paddies, and bombing "truck parks" that contained neither trucks, nor strategic supplies... Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" was financed with the blood of draftees neither cowardly enough to run away, nor wealthy enough to buy a College Deferment.

It's interesting to note that the same party that manipulated the Vietnam war into a ten-year quagmire, are now the first to compare Iraq to it... I would guess that it takes one to know one when it comes to such things, after all, nobody spots a thief, like a thief.

It's also interesting to note that the Left is dusting off the old Vietnam Protest Phrases and focusing their efforts on demonizing American troops. I guess they have to-there haven't been any American defeats to use for fodder.

Of course they "Support the troops, not the war" about the way they did in 1972-only they're less addled by LSD, and more able to keep from saying what htey really think about anyone who wears the uniform.

I think in general, the left wing sees terrorism as more of an international crime problem than a military problem, and in a lot of ways I think they are correct. There have been scores of terrorists arrested and prosecuted throughout Europe.

I don't think this approach on it's own is entirely effective, but I think more emphasis should be placed on it.

What we need is a peace conference to discuss the problem ,an international anti-terror conference to discuss and solve the terrorist problem between the terrorist leaders and the allied countries. If that fails , then violence is the answer.

Nah, they would fight. They only support pacifism, because it’s a convenient way of opposing the right and preventing progress.

I doupt it, they would collaborate with the enemy probably, much in the same vein as they are encouraging Islamic terrorism at present.

I don't!
Then stop generalising!


If you fought back, you would one: be violating your own principles of non violence
Self-defence doesn't violate that principle! Not all on the left are non violent anyway.

I wouldn't say that- Vietnam. Korea. Somalia. Haiti.

*snip rant*

Of course they "Support the troops, not the war" about the way they did in 1972-only they're less addled by LSD, and more able to keep from saying what htey really think about anyone who wears the uniform.
Why are all your posts irrelevant rants? The Democrats don't represent the left anyway.

I doupt it, they would collaborate with the enemy probably, much in the same vein as they are encouraging Islamic terrorism at present.
:rolleyes:

I doupt it, they would collaborate with the enemy probably, much in the same vein as they are encouraging Islamic terrorism at present.

Chewbacculla, I sympathies with you on this issue, really. You are obviously a frustrated right winger who doesn’t understand why some politicians are against the War on Terror. The answer is simple. National Democrats have, what to you would seem, an odd view of the world. Many of them believe that all disputes can be solved peaceably, that one should actively seek these peaceful resolutions, and that tolerance should be exhibited to other societies. These are not bad things to believe in, and are actually quite admirable when exhibited. However, the problem with this ideology comes when dealing with people who can not be reasoned with, whose demands are so irrational, their tactics so heinous, that a civilized society must fight them. What most Democrats fail to realize is that there is a time when you need to stand up and fight, when negotiation won’t work, and when the enemy’s acts are so reprehensible that they do not warrant toleration.

Chewbacculla, I sympathies with you on this issue, really. You are obviously a frustrated right winger who doesn’t understand why some politicians are against the War on Terror. The answer is simple. National Democrats have, what to you would seem, an odd view of the world. Many of them believe that all disputes can be solved peaceably, that one should actively seek these peaceful resolutions, and that tolerance should be exhibited to other societies. These are not bad things to believe in, and are actually quite admirable when exhibited. However, the problem with this ideology comes when dealing with people who can not be reasoned with, whose demands are so irrational, their tactics so heinous, that a civilized society must fight them. What most Democrats fail to realize is that there is a time when you need to stand up and fight, when negotiation won’t work, and when the enemy’s acts are so reprehensible that they do not warrant toleration.

I know, the Democrats, like Labor in my own country, are a party that encourages cowardice above all.
They use silly statements such as, by using their tactics we will be no worse than them, what they fail to realise is that the best way to defeat these people is to get down in the mud with them, eye to eye and duke it out.
Like I would never kick a guy in the nuts first in a fight, but if he did so to me, I would not hesitate to do the same back, therefore I am in the right of the matter.

Liverbreath']We really need to make some major changes in education. Something really difficult like...return it to local control and end lifetime tenures!

I agree with you 100%!

I can name a few cowards on your side, too. Should we start with a big one? How about Bush? You know, "I joined the National Guard but all I got were these lousy Dental Records."

What about Bill Clinton? He ran to Canada. At least Bush Served his country and therefor didn't dodge service to his country :rolleyes:

All I can say is thank God people like Chewbaccula are in the extreme minority. Ignorance is never a good thing.

What about Bill Clinton? He ran to Canada. At least Bush Served his country and therefor didn't dodge service to his country :rolleyes:
I'd have dodged to Canada, too during Vietnam. Just like I would in this escapade in Iraq if they brought the draft back.

And about the Democrats only entering wars that they can win, I was just trying to be witty. The differences between Republicans and Democrats are not that great except with regard to issues like Women's Rights and Freedom of the Press and such.

just an Idea why has switzerland have no problem with terrorists?
Check the country out actually its pretty interesting

What about Bill Clinton? He ran to Canada. At least Bush Served his country and therefor didn't dodge service to his country :rolleyes:
I am totally surprised that you would even go there after the severe lambasting that you received on this subject the other day. :rolleyes:

I guess you just couldn't resist taking a shot at Clinton while upholding your Bush apologist duties?

I am totally surprised that you would even go there after the severe lambasting that you received on this subject the other day. :rolleyes:

I guess you just couldn't resist taking a shot at Clinton while upholding your Bush apologist duties?
Yeah, I assume he gets paid a commission on how many times he villifies Democrats and fellates the Bush administration everyday

Name one idea put forth that wouldn’t require drastically increasing taxes and/or increasing our amount of troops in the region to make sure that funds donated are being used correctly.
What exactly is wrong with these things? The war ain't free you know. (I support the Iraq war, BTW?)

Ihatevacations']Yeah, I assume he gets paid a commission on how many times he villifies Democrats and fellates the Bush administration everyday
It really bugs me too. He hijacks every thread with his Republicans vs Democrats bullshit. He may respect me, but I have none for him, I can tell you. Cornlieu is a hack.

Do you think I'm joking? I'm not. Do you think I'm crazy? You're entitled to your opinion. Do you think I don't care about the loss of innocent lives? You're dead wrong.
Alright, Stalin, I found a few flaws. If you propose killing everyone in Afghanistan, the vast majority of whom are innocent, then you obviously don't care about the loss of innocent lives.

Why nuke them? What was wrong with the invasion idea? If the US just put more money and 100,000 more troops into Afghanistan the problems would start getting solved. Not to mention that nuclear weapons have not been used for 60 years. They are considered exclusively MAD territory. The US would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. I don't want to live in a world where getting nuked actually is a reality.

As for the innocent lives lost in Afghanistan, well, they tolerated the Taliban who harbored Bin-Laden.
Actually, you had the Northern Alliance who were certainly not tolerant of the Taliban. Why did they deserve a nuking? Going back to the regular Afghans, its not like they could just vote the Taliban out of government. They also lacked guns, so they could not rise up in revolution. Why did they deserve a nuking? Your entire position stinks of being motivated by overactive testosterone, than thinking of a workable solution to the problem.

Too bad for them.
Saying "too bad" doesn't exactly tie in with your attempted "humanist" image. Your stance is pro-death and not even utilitarian at that.

If you don't have any terrorists, you won't have any more terrorism.

Err.. no. Terrorists are not bred as a separate "terrorist species". There is not a limit to how many exist. It's not possible to just kill them all off. People become terrorists due to various environmental (radical religion, no political freedom, poverty) and external factors (objectionable US foreign policy).

Your view of the world is black and white. That's not how it is.

I'd have dodged to Canada, too during Vietnam. Just like I would in this escapade in Iraq if they brought the draft back.

*shrugs* your choice if you wanted too. Hope you don't come back because if you do, odds are you'll be arrested. But since the draft wasn't coming back regardless of what some have said, you have nothing to fear.

And about the Democrats only entering wars that they can win, I was just trying to be witty.

I hope your being witty! Vietnam ring a bell? It was started by Lyndon B. Johnson. A democrat. At least Iraq is winnable.

I am totally surprised that you would even go there after the severe lambasting that you received on this subject the other day. :rolleyes:

I guess you just couldn't resist taking a shot at Clinton while upholding your Bush apologist duties?

I'm sorry but I'm currently fighting the Bush Administration over a little thing called a base closer? Not to mention fighting him on Immigration? I'm no Bush appologist and I suggest you get that through your thick skull.

It really bugs me too. He hijacks every thread with his Republicans vs Democrats bullshit. He may respect me, but I have none for him, I can tell you. Cornlieu is a hack.

Not every thread. BTW: how many threads turn into a US bashing thread? Far to many.

Not every thread. BTW: how many threads turn into a US bashing thread? Far to many.
How many of those involve the righwing villifying democrats first? most of them you are in

Ihatevacations']How many of those involve the righwing villifying democrats first? most of them you are in

And most of the time, I don't join in unless someone makes a snipe remark at Bush. But make one about Clinton and this is the result. Talk about hypocracy.

I hope your being witty! Vietnam ring a bell? It was started by Lyndon B. Johnson. A democrat. At least Iraq is winnable.

Right. And our involvement in the region was begun by the much admired JFK.

I'm sorry but I'm currently fighting the Bush Administration over a little thing called a base closer? Not to mention fighting him on Immigration? I'm no Bush appologist and I suggest you get that through your thick skull.

Nah, they are never going to understand that. So many people on the left prefer to think of right wingers as brain washed idiots, so they can justify ignoring/impeding every one of our ideas . Whatever helps them sleep at night, I guess.

And most of the time, I don't join in unless someone makes a snipe remark at Bush. But make one about Clinton and this is the result. Talk about hypocracy.

So your response to something Bush did wrong is "Clinton did it too"?

What makes that ok for Bush?

Right. And our involvement in the region was begun by the much admired JFK.

Actually, it was started by Ike, but I'm getting used to neoconservatives not knowing the right information, so I'll let you slide there.

Nah, they are never going to understand that. So many people on the left prefer to think of right wingers as brain washed idiots, so they can justify ignoring/impeding every one of our ideas . Whatever helps them sleep at night, I guess.

Actually, I'm not surprised. I know quite a few former Bushies who are now pissed off at him for his stance on the illegal immigration.

And most of the time, I don't join in unless someone makes a snipe remark at Bush. But make one about Clinton and this is the result. Talk about hypocracy.
Bush is the current president, clinton isn't. Get over it

I'm sorry but I'm currently fighting the Bush Administration over a little thing called a base closer? Not to mention fighting him on Immigration? I'm no Bush appologist and I suggest you get that through your thick skull.
mmmkay so you have immigration. You appear to agree with him across the board on everything else. YOU also appear to have few principles beyond party loyalty. My evidence is your unflinching defence at each and every latest outrage revealed in Guantanamo Bay. You are willing to stand by his betrayals of human rights and the tradition of justice, fair trials simply because he's a Republican.

Actually, it was started by Ike, but I'm getting used to neoconservatives not knowing the right information, so I'll let you slide there.

Accurate statement. Not to many people know what you just stated. :)

Actually, I'm not surprised. I know quite a few former Bushies who are now pissed off at him for his stance on the illegal immigration.

I don't like his immigration policies that for sure. I also don't like the fact that he's not going to augment the BRAC report. That pissed me off and I'm fighting the base closer harder than ever.

Actually, it was started by Ike, but I'm getting used to neoconservatives not knowing the right information, so I'll let you slide there.

Dang. Forgot about the whole rebellion against France. Well, JFK certainly heightened our involvement, but yeah, your right. Oh, and don’t let me slide, I am no neocon.

Dang. Forgot about the whole rebellion against France. Well, JFK certainly heightened our involvement, but yeah, your right. Oh, and don’t let me slide, I am no neocon.

In that case, F+ =P

And yeah, JFK did heighten the involvement, he fell for the whole domino thing. Oh well, what he lacked in intelligence he made up for in sleeping with Marylin Monroe.

Canada City']I say we project giant prono movies into the night sky or side of mountains 24/7

That would so fuck up the Muslim terrorist's head :)

lmao, do that or start building hooters there. haha

Originally Posted by Desperate Measures
I'd have dodged to Canada, too during Vietnam. Just like I would in this escapade in Iraq if they brought the draft back.

Fucking coward. If your country calls you to fight, fight. I hate American pussies like you.

:) < you :sniper: < me

I doupt it, they would collaborate with the enemy probably, much in the same vein as they are encouraging Islamic terrorism at present.

That's like me saying everyone on the right side of the spectrum is a member of the KKK.

Also, who said that the democrats favour cowardice above all? Are youi BLIND?! If you look at it from the other angle, I can make eberyone on the right look like cowards. Seriously, you keep saying that liberals don't want to fight. How is that cowardly? Personally, I think a guy who stands there being punched is alot braver then the guy who pulls a knife.

*shrugs* your choice if you wanted too. Hope you don't come back because if you do, odds are you'll be arrested. But since the draft wasn't coming back regardless of what some have said, you have nothing to fear.



I hope your being witty! Vietnam ring a bell? It was started by Lyndon B. Johnson. A democrat. At least Iraq is winnable.

My reason for stating the democrats only fighting wars they can win comment was unfortunately worded.

Iraq is winnable in what sense? In giving a country democracy, it is. The best thing that can be said for this war and something that I think will be very good for Iraqi's (however, couldn't this have been done in the first Gulf War when we chose not to invade Baghdad and oust Saddam?). But I thought this was the war on terror. In that scenario, we're doing very little to prevent and tons to provoke it. It's becoming harder and harder to keep our wars separate, isn't it?

As far as the draft coming or not coming, I don't think any of us can say. If this war drags on and less and less troops are registering, what choices are left us?

Originally Posted by Desperate Measures
I'd have dodged to Canada, too during Vietnam. Just like I would in this escapade in Iraq if they brought the draft back.

Fucking coward. If your country calls you to fight, fight. I hate American pussies like you.

:) < you :sniper: < me

And if you were in Germany in the late thirties? I hate ignorant people like you.

And if you were in Germany in the late thirties? I hate ignorant people like you.

WW 2 has nothing to do with it. We were talking about you dodging drafts. However, if I was in Germany or in any otherplace during World War II, I would fight for my country without hesitation. You obviously don't have the balls to do that so your not worth my time you.

However, if I was in Germany or in any otherplace during World War II, I would fight for my country without hesitation. You obviously don't have the balls to do that so your not worth my time you.
So it is cowardice to oppose an unjust cause? The government is always right, and such?

Sounds a tad totalitarian for my liking.

Originally Posted by Desperate Measures
I'd have dodged to Canada, too during Vietnam. Just like I would in this escapade in Iraq if they brought the draft back.

Fucking coward. If your country calls you to fight, fight. I hate American pussies like you.

:) < you :sniper: < me

While I would agree with you that DM is in a way being a coward, you should be careful about the sniper and you thingy. The Mods might be a bit unhappy. You could get yourself in some trouble if they notice.

"If your country calls you to fight, fight."

How was my reply irrelevant to your remark? As far as me being a coward, if dying for a lie is bravery, I don't mind being one. But cowardice is not in my nature.

So it is cowardice to oppose an unjust cause? The government is always right, and such?

Sounds a tad totalitarian for my liking.
Sounds a tad insane for mine.

And if you were in Germany in the late thirties? I hate ignorant people like you.
I hear Godwin calling!

I hear Godwin calling!
Ha ha! Damn it! I lost! I was so right too...

[QUOTE=Blueshoetopia]That's like me saying everyone on the right side of the spectrum is a member of the KKK.

I wasnt reaching for extremes like this with my view of the left, basically, the left seem to be against any military action no matter how justified, because of worry of danger to themselves.
True cowards, all of them.



Also, who said that the democrats favour cowardice above all?

It seems to be the governing factor that influences all their policys, much as it is with the Labor party in my own country.

Are youi BLIND?! If you look at it from the other angle, I can make eberyone on the right look like cowards.

No m8, actually you cant, the right will at least fight for their country, even if its in the wrong, wheras you guys wont even stand up if its cause is just. Face it the Left r just plain yellow.


Seriously, you keep saying that liberals don't want to fight. How is that cowardly? Personally, I think a guy who stands there being punched is alot braver then the guy who pulls a knife.

First theres nothing brave about standing still and letting yourself be punched, its either stupidity, or cowardice because your too scared to fight back.
You lost me on the knife part of your arguement sorry.

LEFTIST CRITICISM DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM GIVE US AN IDEA TOWARDS A SOLUTION

Simply stop participating in terrorism, recognize that the actions of the "terrorists" are reflexive. You have their land, you regularly claim to wish to bomb them, and have in the past regularly, and you wish to have complete control of their natural resources in the area. (as a goal since the 1930s)

Democracy is not Capitalism. Currently, you are controlling Iraqs government, resisted calls for open elections, until of course, they decided to do it anyways, then you said it was a "great thing". The world is building up an armament towards the US. Every country knows full well that the United States is preparing to arm space, preparing first strike and strike anywhere technology. They are seriously discussed around the world and basically, even your allies are playing it cool with you. They are afraid. This fear you are generating is percipitating the likelyhood of a nuclear exchange. These are serious problems and serious reprocussions.

Firstly. Understand that Capitalism as it exists in America is "kinda foreign". To forgo human contact and compassion and replace it with commerce is not good. And obviously it creates staggering problems, as they looking in on America and can see its effects. It creates pollution, war, terror, death, cancer, sick populations, toxic substances, media control, the acquisition of private power begins to gobble up the government, break up public services and even PBS is being broken up... It creates a horribly devestated population of consumers, locked into their own prisons for their mind. They cannot escape the capitalist pull and have open fair democracy, equal to all, like many want.

Because there they know what politics really is. Its not the playful game of who looks better on camera during the elections, who can get homeland security to rig votes and who can get machines to flip votes in favour of one party over another. http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm Very much like Hitler did. Possibly even commit treason and assist in the blowing up of the towers to facilitate the need for fear and the need for war. No politics is about the real controls and institutions that control their lives. The real threats to their existance.

The current administration of the US has committed warcrimes. They are criminals and should be dealt with as such. They have changed the nature of the United States fundementally and in effect formed a totalitarian state. I have no doubt that they will be in another war in Iran, and will withhold elections due to War and in so doing mark the final phase of the Reganites plan for a new Corporate Police State. Welcome to the new America.

The new Nazi's the rest of the free world must unite to fight. With Europe, Russia, China, Australia... Perhaps they will destroy the zionist racism too. But it's hard to say.

I just know I am not mistaken, and that is even more frightening. I feel sorry for your citizens.

Simply stop participating in terrorism, recognize that the actions of the "terrorists" are reflexive. You have their land, you regularly claim to wish to bomb them, and have in the past regularly, and you wish to have complete control of their natural resources in the area. (as a goal since the 1930s)
I strongly agree with these points today. After 9/11, I agreed with the US retaliation against Afghanistan, since they wouldn't give up those responsible. Then the US started sabre rattling with Iraq and the warning bells started to go off. This was turning into a war other than a war on terrorism. Even though the UN inspectors were in Iraq and doing a credible job, the US was unwilling to let them (the inspectors) to finish their job. Why? For the simple reason that the US knew that the inspectors were not going to find any WMD, and that would derail the plan to occupy Iraq. This has become a war to control the region and inevitably control its' vast resources. I no longer agree with the invasion of Afghanistan because I now believe it was part of the overall plan.

Today, Afghanistan is still in a terrible mess and as Bush recently declared, the US has no exit plan for Iraq and I do not find that surprising at all.

Democracy is not Capitalism. Currently, you are controlling Iraqs government, resisted calls for open elections, until of course, they decided to do it anyways, then you said it was a "great thing". The world is building up an armament towards the US. Every country knows full well that the United States is preparing to arm space, preparing first strike and strike anywhere technology. They are seriously discussed around the world and basically, even your allies are playing it cool with you. They are afraid. This fear you are generating is percipitating the likelyhood of a nuclear exchange. These are serious problems and serious reprocussions.
After the Cold War ended in the early 1990's, the world heaved a collective sigh of relief. With the SALT treaty, and the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the world started to scale back armaments and defence budgets. However, the US continued to spend vast amounts of money on non nuclear "defensive" systems. With the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the identification of Iran and North Korea as part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", and the threats issued to these countries, the world is once again drawn into possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. Some people are already talking about the prospects of a limited nuclear war, and/or the possibility of nuclear war(s).

Firstly. Understand that Capitalism as it exists in America is "kinda foreign". To forgo human contact and compassion and replace it with commerce is not good. And obviously it creates staggering problems, as they looking in on America and can see its effects. It creates pollution, war, terror, death, cancer, sick populations, toxic substances, media control, the acquisition of private power begins to gobble up the government, break up public services and even PBS is being broken up... It creates a horribly devestated population of consumers, locked into their own prisons for their mind. They cannot escape the capitalist pull and have open fair democracy, equal to all, like many want.
Many of these topics have been hotly debated here on NS, and so they should, because in essence, they are real and present in our societies. Many have scoffed at these concepts but the reality is that they are a huge problem. IMHO, a "purely" capitalistic society will eventual consume itself.

Because there they know what politics really is. Its not the playful game of who looks better on camera during the elections, who can get homeland security to rig votes and who can get machines to flip votes in favour of one party over another. http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm Very much like Hitler did. Possibly even commit treason and assist in the blowing up of the towers to facilitate the need for fear and the need for war. No politics is about the real controls and institutions that control their lives. The real threats to their existance.
Although some of the points here involve conspiracy type theories, I must keep an open mind about all possibilities. There has been considerable discussion on these boards about the elections of 2000, and 2004, and much of it is steeped in skepticism. The propaganda that exists on both sides is absolutely overwhelming to say the least. There is definitely a deep divide and one can only hope that truth, justice, and fairness will prevail.

The current administration of the US has committed warcrimes. They are criminals and should be dealt with as such. They have changed the nature of the United States fundementally and in effect formed a totalitarian state. I have no doubt that they will be in another war in Iran, and will withhold elections due to War and in so doing mark the final phase of the Reganites plan for a new Corporate Police State. Welcome to the new America.
The US is one of the few countries that refuses to participate in the ICC and given your assertions, one can see why. One could argue that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent bombing of her citizens should be considered a war crime, and definitely the "inhumane" treatment of prisoners are crimes of war. Congress did hand the controls to the war machine to Bush, and the Republicans do control the House, the Senate and the White House. So much for the "checks and balances" of the republic? And, I like you, also believe that the US will engage Iran in war, as the next step in controlling the region and her resources.

The new Nazi's the rest of the free world must unite to fight. With Europe, Russia, China, Australia... Perhaps they will destroy the zionist racism too. But it's hard to say.
While there may be some comparisons, I am not quite prepared to use that tag, as it is unique to one person and his bankrupt ideology. I am sure that you will receive much rebuttal, especially from the hard core Bushies?

I just know I am not mistaken, and that is even more frightening. I feel sorry for your citizens.
Well, I hope that you are wrong, but I do get an uneasy feeling from the current US administration, and their ever present agenda. Somehow, the self proclaimed tag of "compassionate conservative" doesn't suit George Bush.