What you essentially are saying is the U.S. should be feared, which certainly is the situation in the Middle East (and elsewhere in the world) and the level of fear increases with every drone strike. The problem is fear is the most potent precursor of hatred and we are inciting the virulent hatred of people who, because of their religious and cultural orientation, are willing to die to strike at an enemy (e.g., the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks). My opposition to our activities in the Middle East is not inspired by the so-called "bleeding heart Liberal" disposition but by basic morality and common sense. I firmly believe the most dangerous thing in the world is a man (or woman) who is ready to die -- and we are arrogantly provoking the hatred of more and more of exactly that category every day. How long can our luck hold out? I am seventy-five so I won't be around much longer. But I have five grand-children who haven't begun to live their lives yet. What a future we are setting them up for.
The Pax Brittainia in the 19th century and early 20th century was based upon fear... Fear and the knowledge that if any local prince or warlord crossed the British then retribution would be swift and overwhelming. After a few thugs acted up and got totally crushed by the khakis suddenly the other warlords fell in line. They knew that cooperation would be mutually profitable while open war was something they could never win while no one could doubt British resolve to seek revenge against someone who had acted against them. Believe it or not this works. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Ancient Rome, the US, 19th century UK, the Mongol Empire, or even the Soviets. The key parts are they have to know peaceful cooperation is profitable to them while acting violently will surely be met with harsh reprisals.
You're talking about people who shared a common fear of death in a era when the most dangerous weapons were crossbows and catapults. Today our enemies believe in martyrdom and it's a matter time until some of them obtain a nuclear device or they hijack a couple of airliners again. The most dangerous thing in the world is someone who is ready to die. And it's not brave to continuously provoke someone like that. It is hair-raisingly stupid.
I like this idea because the logic allows police departments to save a lot of money on SWAT like units. Someone is holding hostages? Fuck em, just call in an air strike.
Rule number one is you never negotiate with terrorists. To give them any concessions just encourages more people to become terrorists. That's the harsh reality you're avoiding. If they get any benefit out of being terrorists then not only will they continue being terrorists but more people will pick up the tactic for gain. It's best to be ruthless with them so that way next time the new potential terrorist says "it didn't get the last guy anything but a swift death". Attempt to appease them and you'll have more. Afterwards, when no one can say the terrorist act caused it then you can attempt to remedy root causes if such is possible but never as a direct result of terrorist activity. The hard reality is if you give in to some demands now they'll see they were rewarded and just make new demands.
Do you have a definitive list of what constitutes "provoking them?" Because sometimes it's cartoons, and sometimes it's some offense that occurred centuries earlier. What's the solution then?
I did say most of the world. Not all of the world. If you compare our status in the world in the fifties to what it is today I'm sure you'll agree world opinion of America and Americans was mostly favorable. And even though the Soviet government opposed us the vast majority of ordinary citizens in the Soviet bloc nations liked, envied and admired us, mainly because of our benevolent disposition toward the enemies we'd defeated in WW-II. Today the U.S. is perceived as a greedy, ruthlessly oppressive bully.
So... America should act more like it did during and shortly after WWII? Maybe America should occupy Iraq and Afghanistan like it did with Germany? Or maybe America should be very, very careful to avoid harming civilians, like it did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden? I can feel the love already!
Treating Arab Muslims as if we were dealing with Europeans in the 70's and 80's is why we're where we're at now... It allowed them to develop the sense that America is weak minded...
Gotta agree with this. I caught a guy celebrating, driving around with Arabic music at full blast the night of the attacks. Clearly he was happy about the terrorist attacks. Pulled into a convenience store at the same time as him. Blinked a second, then got pissed, and started walking toward him. He saw he was in for a confrontation and got in his car and left. I think anybody with a brain knew at that time some serious pain and misery was heading the way of those that supported the attacks.
Make them understand its not worth it. And despite what our new friend is saying, that was the lesson learned. Attacks are down, and those attacks that happen are in their homelands with their people killing each other. The history lesson is going to be that the military response was the appropriate response. Even the reactionary mullahs are now preaching that AQ and the attacks hurt Islam instead of helping it, and that striking at an enemy many times more powerful than you is not the way to win their struggle. The moderate Muslims turned on them when they saw how horrific that AQ in Iraq was, who attacked any and all that didn't believe in their specific form of Islam. Al Zarqawi did more to hurt the brand of AQ then the pentagon psy ops teams did - it was clear he was a murdering psycopath that killed dozens of Muslims for every Imperialist Yankee pig. The US screwed the pooch early and often in the War on Terror. But its clear we won. Because it wasn't a war on some nebulous concept, it was a war on the terror cells employed by Isalmic extremists to further their political reach - and those have been absolutely decimated.
You mean shortly after WWII, when hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in US and Aliied bombing raids? Or during and right after the Korean War? Or during the Cold War when we were building nukes as fast as possible? You mean when the US was doing unethical experimentation on prisoners and soldiers? If you had any knowledge of history or the world, your posts might make some sense.
I see what you're getting at (trying to point out Western hypocrisy). But Pakistan doesn't have a good track record when it comes to dealing with terrorists, so what's your solution?
Actually, this is Pakistani hypocrisy. They claim land that they clearly don't control, which indeed they've lost many armed conflicts trying to control. Indeed, the army and intelligence agency has a reason to not want to control - they've used these very same tribal areas as terrorist catspaws to strike against their enemies for years. They attacked and killed members of the Indian parliament using these fanatics, and they've been quite busy over the years in the border areas disputed between India, China and Pakistan. Further, the ISI created the Taliban in the first place for just this purpose, and were initially delighted that they successfully overthrew the government of Aghanistan. That's why the Democratic elements wink at the US while we take out terrorists in the tribal areas because they know those fanatics could be turned against them at any time. They killed their last PM, if you recall. The army and the ISI want a extreme form of Islam, while the moderates want democratization and Westernization. That's as much the battle over there as is the battle in Afghanistan. And that's why OBL can live openly among a city crawling with retired army officers while their military leaders scream bloody murder when we go in and take him out.
That is George W. Bush's Rule Number One, which is why we presently are burdened with the anti-Constitutional provisions of the so-called "Patriot" Act and the humiliating impositions of TSA airport search requirements. Little by little we are becoming a nation under siege and the question we should be demanding answers to is, WHY?
You must really like being totally wrong. Not negotiating with terrorist, a good policy, had nothing at all to do with shitty unconstitutional legislation and laws like Patriot and TSA. Your ignorance really shows when you post crap like this.
I have no problem with it. None. And I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were Bush, Romney, McCain or Ron Paul doing it. We didn't declare war on Al Qaeda, they declared war on us. And to win a war, you have to kill the leaders of your enemy, the soldiers of your enemy, and sometimes, even the wives and children of your enemy. You don't want to be blown apart in a drone strike? Don't associate with America's enemies. Denounce them. Repudiate them. Fight them. I just can't bring myself to see killing terrorists as a bad thing.
The U.S. never had a serious problem with any Islamic entity prior to 1947, which is when we injudiciously chose to aid in the creation of the state of Israel. That planted a poison seed and our increasingly protective relationship with Israel has been the source of proportionately increasing resentment ever since. And that is one source of provocation. Preparation for Operation Desert Storm included installation of a U.S. military base (the bin Sultan Airbase) in Mecca, which is the Islamic holy ground. The presence of "infidels" on that ground is a grave insult to devout Muslims, including Usama bin Laden and the sect of religious extremists he administered. When PBS Frontline journalist, John Miller, learned that a series of requests that then-President Bill Clinton remove the base were ignored and had graduated to a threatening demand by an Islamic extremist group called Al Qaeda he arranged to interview the group's leader. That interview took place in 1998 in a cave in Afghanistan. I watched that interview, the full transcript of which is available via Google. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html The following is a brief excerpt of that interview. (Excerpt) (Miller)... "What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?" (bin Laden) "The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ..." (Close Excerpt) When I watched that interview on Frontline I wasn't very impressed by the gaunt, bearded and turbaned Arab seated on a cave floor with an AK-47 leaning on the stone wall behind him. But on the evening of 9/11/01, when the intelligence reports started coming in and I realized who Usama bin Laden was, the grievances voiced in that interview came back to me. What I've learned since then is bin Laden repeatedly warned Bush that he intended to attack the U.S. if his demands were not met. Bush ignored those demands -- in spite of intelligence reports of Muslims learning how to fly airliners but not how to land or take off. What is more significant is after the 9/11 attack Bush removed the bin Sultan airbase from Mecca and he pressured Sharon to evict Israeli settlers from the Gaza region, thus satisfying bin Laden's demands! There is the two item definitive list of provocations -- right from the horse's mouth.
That attitude is fine when you are dealing with the Western mentality. But when you are dealing with a mentality that believes in martydom you would be wise to tread softly and to carefully consider the reasons for the hostility. Because there is nothing more dangerous than someone who is willing to die to strike at you. Only a fool would not be willing to negotiate with such a mentality. Has it occurred to you that the 9/11 attack was the result of long-term provocation which could have been mitigated were it not for arrogant contempt on the part of the Clinton and Bush Administrations?
It had everything to do with it. Because everything which has happened to us since the 9/11 attack, including that attack, could easily have been avoided if the chest-pounding goon mentality you clearly manifest had not prevailed at the highest levels of government.
You are a complete retard. They want to impose Sharia on the world. They use any and everything as an excuse, but that's their goal. So unless you agree to that, there's nothing to negotiate.
