Dare I say....

[Cuivienen]

Then how do you intend to deal with them? I would like to know, because I'm completely at a loss on that subject except sending nukes at them.

The strategy that everyone fears. Ignore them.

That's right. Ignore them. Ignore the terrorists. Oh sure, make attempts to stop terrorist attacks, but leave it up to the CIA and FBI. Don't retaliate, just stop attacks before they happen. If there's nothing for them to be angry about, terrorism will slowly disappear. If, however, the US continues to do things to annoy Muslims (or potential terrorists in general), terrorism will always survive.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm sorry but fighting terrorism has never worked and it never will, all it does is increase recruitment amongst those involved, politicises people and increases terrorists numbers when people are killed on their side and genrally makes a morass of the whole area, if the US wasn't their they'd most likely fall on each other, but if they weren't there in the first place a hell of alot of Iraqis would still be alive and terrorism in Iraq would be practically non existant. I just don't understand this hawkish insistence on war being a great way to destroy terroirsm if you actually produced an example that proved this I'd say fair enough but it's just your opinion. Here's one that proves that peace seems to solve the situation: Northern Ireland.

So we aren't supposed to fight terrorism? What, exactly, do you propose we do then? Hand out flowers, and sing kumbyah, and hope no one out there hates us enough to try and kill us? (Despite knowing otherwise?)

 

[tomsnowman123]

The strategy that everyone fears. Ignore them.

That's right. Ignore them. Ignore the terrorists. Oh sure, make attempts to stop terrorist attacks, but leave it up to the CIA and FBI. Don't retaliate, just stop attacks before they happen. If there's nothing for them to be angry about, terrorism will slowly disappear. If, however, the US continues to do things to annoy Muslims (or potential terrorists in general), terrorism will always survive.

I think you might be on to something...

Leave it to a strictly defensive military to defend our borders, and stop attacking other countries wrongly. Is it too much to ask to try to avoid war?

 

[Tulkas12]

The strategy that everyone fears. Ignore them.

That's right. Ignore them. Ignore the terrorists. Oh sure, make attempts to stop terrorist attacks, but leave it up to the CIA and FBI. Don't retaliate, just stop attacks before they happen. If there's nothing for them to be angry about, terrorism will slowly disappear. If, however, the US continues to do things to annoy Muslims (or potential terrorists in general), terrorism will always survive.

It is not just us they are attacking if you hadn't noticed. They are generally trying to take over local governments, ignoring them will allow them to spread even further. We have ignored them long enough. They have established minorities (legit) in most countries across the mid-east. They were running Afghanistan. They are still running Iran (much to its own ppl's dismay). Pakistan would be their's as well if it weren't for Mushariff. You should realize that Pakistan is a nuclear power. You should also realize that rhetoric only tends to rhetoric until the party espousing it comes to power. . .it quickly becomes reality shortly thereafter.

Ignoring them would be disasterous.

 

[Tulkas12]

I think you might be on to something...

Leave it to a strictly defensive military to defend our borders, and stop attacking other countries wrongly. Is it too much to ask to try to avoid war?

Yes, because it is an ignorant short-term veiw that solves nothing and lets problems fester until they threaten all of mankind. I refer to my previous post as to why.

 

[Cuivienen]

It is not just us they are attacking if you hadn't noticed. They are generally trying to take over local governments, ignoring them will allow them to spread even further. We have ignored them long enough. They have established minorities (legit) in most countries across the mid-east. They were running Afghanistan. They are still running Iran (much to its own ppl's dismay). Pakistan would be their's as well if it weren't for Mushariff. You should realize that Pakistan is a nuclear power. You should also realize that rhetoric only tends to rhetoric until the party espousing it comes to power. . .it quickly becomes reality shortly thereafter.

Ignoring them would be disasterous.

They ran Afghanistan... into the ground. The Taliban was facing active resistance across the country from businessmen and tribes alike and could not have survived more than a few years longer. However, the US stepped in instead. Sure, the Taliban was overthrown, but suddenly everyone in Afghanistan had someone to channel their energy against, and the Taliban survived as an insurgency. It was all the US's fault that Afghanistan was in such dire straits. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. All that matters is the perception.

And Musharraf controls Pakistan. We prop him up a bit, but he would do well enough without the US; he controlled the country essentially without US support from the end of the Cold War until 2001. In any case, I don't think direct military intervention is or ever will be necessary to prevent Pakistan's nuclear weapons form falling into terrorists' hands, just cooperation by the CIA with Musharraf's government.

Rhetoric tends to rhetoric... tends to rhetoric. What has Ahmadinejad actually done? Rhetoric. Not only that, but he has shown the (voting) people of Iran that maybe a fundamentalist wasn't such a good idea after all. And when was he elected? After the US invasions, when the US was "attacking Islam." He probably wouldn't have even been elected had their been no US invasions to rail against.

 

[tomsnowman123]

It is not just us they are attacking if you hadn't noticed. They are generally trying to take over local governments, ignoring them will allow them to spread even further. We have ignored them long enough. They have established minorities (legit) in most countries across the mid-east. They were running Afghanistan. They are still running Iran (much to its own ppl's dismay). Pakistan would be their's as well if it weren't for Mushariff. You should realize that Pakistan is a nuclear power. You should also realize that rhetoric only tends to rhetoric until the party espousing it comes to power. . .it quickly becomes reality shortly thereafter.

Ignoring them would be disasterous.

Why? They attacked Spain because they were partakeing in the War on Terror. Our aggressiveness continues to produce hatred against the west. We should not have the right to just barge into other countries. And we need to get along with Pakistan by stopping our support of Israel and our lack of respect for them [Pakistan].

And I highly doubt that they will threaten all mankind. Do you really see them taking over dozens of countries? No.

 

[Tulkas12]

Why? They attacked Spain because they were partakeing in the War on Terror. Our aggressiveness continues to produce hatred against the west. We should not have the right to just barge into other countries. And we need to get along with Pakistan by stopping our support of Israel and our lack of respect for them [Pakistan].

And I highly doubt that they will threaten all mankind. Do you really see them taking over dozens of countries? No.

Yea man, I do. They have control of Iran (a very strong nation btw), they had control of Afghanistan (a weak one I concede). They have legit minorities in alot of countries. These minorities with the right backing could very easily take over and have in Iran.

Regarding spain? I wouldn't listen to the rhetoric of the reasons for their attacks. Did they attack spain because it was in Iraq, Afghanistan? Yea, sure they did. Is that a legit reason for attacking Spain? Yea, sure it is. Does that matter one iota considering the peopl we are fighting there? Hell no it doesn't, as a matter of fact Spain should of doubled its resolve because of such an attack.

I think it might be a good ides to acknowledge tha fact that the majority of the mid-east doesn't hate us near as much as it is made out to.

We need more Turkey and less Iran. Iran's philosphies were spreading and Turkey's was not, we have to stop that. I acknowledgde that Isreal is a center point of the anti-americanism in the area. I have no easy solution to the matter. I feel if we don't stay in the area that it will some day go nuclear and then its hardly just "their business".

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yea man, I do. They have control of Iran (a very strong nation btw), they had control of Afghanistan (a weak one I concede). They have legit minorities in alot of countries. These minorities with the right backing could very easily take over and have in Iran.

I think them trying to spread out and getting power hungry may hurt them. I'm not saying to support this, nor am I making a stance on it, I just think that the more they exert their control over the Middle East, the more that people might stand up against their extremist views. Just a thought.

Edited typo.

 

[Cuivienen]

We need more Turkey and less Iran. Iran's philosphies were spreading and Turkey's was not, we have to stop that. I acknowledgde that Isreal is a center point of the anti-americanism in the area. I have no easy solution to the matter. I feel if we don't stay in the area that it will some day go nuclear and then its hardly just "their business".

Yes, exactly. More Turkey, less Iran. But, you know what, no one forced Turkey to secularize or to modernize. It did so of its own accord because it realized that that was the way forward. That's what needs to be done; popular movements internally, not outside intervention. Intervention just gives the impression of being used.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the US invaded Iraq for oil or out of the goodness of its collective heart. What matters is that the former is the impression an invasion gives. No one likes being invaded, even to remove a dictator.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yes, exactly. More Turkey, less Iran. But, you know what, no one forced Turkey to secularize or to modernize. It did so of its own accord because it realized that that was the way forward. That's what needs to be done; popular movements internally, not outside intervention. Intervention just gives the impression of being used.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the US invaded Iraq for oil or out of the goodness of its collective heart. What matters is that the former is the impression an invasion gives. No one likes being invaded, even to remove a dictator.

Allowing countries to move forward on their own accord, not forcing our views on them, is the way to go. They may not think our views are perfect and fine and dandy; they may have different views on how to run a country, and I am guessing they don't see a US invasion as fitting that vision.

 

[Tulkas12]

I think them trying to spread out and getting power hungry may hurt them. I'm not saying to support this, nor am I making a stance on it, I just think that the more they exert their control over the Middle East, the more that people might stand up against their extremist views. Just a thought.

Edited typo.

Agreed, but with technology and brutality would that even matter. It certainly doesn't in alot of countries around the world.

 

[Tulkas12]

Yes, exactly. More Turkey, less Iran. But, you know what, no one forced Turkey to secularize or to modernize. It did so of its own accord because it realized that that was the way forward. That's what needs to be done; popular movements internally, not outside intervention. Intervention just gives the impression of being used.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the US invaded Iraq for oil or out of the goodness of its collective heart. What matters is that the former is the impression an invasion gives. No one likes being invaded, even to remove a dictator.

Attaturk forced Turkey to modernize and become more european in structure. The problem is that the popular movements that have been developing in the past 25 years have been very counter-productive (if not directly opposed) towards the general cause.

Intervention is generally bad, I agree, but we can't sit idly by while peoples who are very open about their hatreds spread like wildfire. Yes invasions suck, I doubt any country that has ever been invaded (all of them) has appreciated it when they were, but many, yes many, have appreciated the after effects of such invasions.

Your reference to a war for oil will be ignored.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Agreed, but with technology and brutality would that even matter. It certainly doesn't in alot of countries around the world.

That is one of the debates that I find most difficult. As much as I disagree in going into other countries or partaking in military action, I find it hard to sit back and watch terrible things done to people, cruelty/genocide, etc. It is something I often think about, and I havn't fully established my stance on it. I am leaning towards going into the situation and trying to solve it peacefully, which I guess is an improvement from where I used to stand, which was "who cares, it's not happening to me."

 

[Tulkas12]

That is one of the debates that I find most difficult. As much as I disagree in going into other countries or partaking in military action, I find it hard to sit back and watch terrible things done to people, cruelty/genocide, etc. It is something I often think about, and I havn't fully established my stance on it. I am leaning towards going into the situation and trying to solve it peacefully, which I guess is an improvement from where I used to stand, which was "who cares, it's not happening to me."

Yea, I had the same issues. I came to believe that we take each area as it is ready to be handled. I think the mid-east, with its established middle-class, is ready for this, whereas Africa and South America are not ready as a whole. This said we still have N. Korea in far-Asia, and various other nations that are in precarious situations. They might be surrounded by "western ideals", but implementaion is stagnant due to a lack of a powerful middle class.

 

[bathsheba666]

We are a calming influence in the area and we, by our very presence, discourage the reprisal attacks.

Wow, the Red Queen has nothing on this..

 

[Tulkas12]

Wow, the Red Queen has nothing on this..

You only think this because you have been mislead. Does the US conduct reprisal attacks as a matter of policy? No. If your answer is otherwise just don't respond to my posts as you hate the US far more than what is repairable.

We try to stop the cycles these people get themselves into, by being there we can do alot more than just "talk" which is what most left-thinking people suggest. "Talking" has gotten us very far with N. Korea and Iran recently hasn't it?

 

[Cuivienen]

Yea, I had the same issues. I came to believe that we take each area as it is ready to be handled. I think the mid-east, with its established middle-class, is ready for this, whereas Africa and South America are not ready as a whole. This said we still have N. Korea in far-Asia, and various other nations that are in precarious situations. They might be surrounded by "western ideals", but implementaion is stagnant due to a lack of a powerful middle class.

Listen to yourself speak! What "established middle class" there was in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or even in Palestine has fled for places where there is no conflict--to France, to Germany, to Pakistan, to Turkey.

 

[Cuivienen]

You only think this because you have been mislead. Does the US conduct reprisal attacks as a matter of policy? No. If your answer is otherwise just don't respond to my posts as you hate the US far more than what is repairable.

We try to stop the cycles these people get themselves into, by being there we can do alot more than just "talk" which is what most left-thinking people suggest. "Talking" has gotten us very far with N. Korea and Iran recently hasn't it?

Light, it doesn't matter what the US policy says. The only thing that matters is what it looks like the US is doing. Was Iraq an imminent threat? (Don't think like an American, think like an Iraqi.) The proper answer is no. So, why did the US invade Iraq? (Again, don't think like an American, think like an Iraqi.) Because the US is punishing Muslims for September 11th/because the US holds a grudge against Iraq for the Gulf War/because the US wants more oil. Not for some high-minded reason. And invading other countries or overstaying the welcome is not going to improve that view at all.

 

[Tulkas12]

Listen to yourself speak! What "established middle class" there was in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or even in Palestine has fled for places where there is no conflict--to France, to Germany, to Pakistan, to Turkey.

Thats silly. Iraq still has its middle class. Asghanistan has never gotten out of an agrain society. Palestine has an educated middle class, small it may be, who do you think is calling for peace in Palestine? Hamas?

No conflict? The French riots last year were very entertaining to any conservative who warns about such immigration policies. Germany has the same boiling going on, which will eventually boil over. Pakistan is a dictatorship. Yes, I agree that many have probably fled to Turkey, but I would geuss most want to gohome after the dust settles.

Face it, not all war is evil, and this war is probably the least evil of all contrary to short-sighted, sensationalistic, and ignorant points of veiw espoused by our liberal presses and its brainwashed lemnings.