Dealing with Terrorism?

[rikzilla]

What Rikzilla said was that jihadis would literaly come to the US and work operations here. That's not domino theory.

It's not even a theory....just history replayed front row center for those who would forget or deny it.

Next time we see some hopeless sod waving his shirt out of a very high window for help that will never come it may be you or I. We need to finish the job in Iraq so that Iraq can become a good example for us instead of them. That's how we stay safe here.

-z

BTW: Not to mention that the anti-war people have always been the "compassionate progressives"...what's progressive or compassionate about leaving the Iraqi people to suffer civil war as we run away?? Many liberals love to say that Bush has "accomplished nothing" in Iraq...but it would only be true if we followed liberal advice! Go figure...

 

[Mark]

What Rikzilla said was that jihadis would literaly come to the US and work operations here. That's not domino theory.

The Domino Theory held that after Southeast Asia fell, before you knew it, they would be serving Borscht at McDonald's.

I mean, hello...9/11 happened before we invaded Iraq. Do think anything that has happened there will prevent something like that from happening here again? The invasion if Afghanistan surely helped...there were people there who were actually involved with 9/11; not that that matters to the Iraq War apologists.

 

[Ladewig]

It's not even a theory....just history replayed front row center for those who would forget or deny it.

Next time we see some hopeless sod waving his shirt out of a very high window for help that will never come it may be you or I. We need to finish the job in Iraq .

I'll have a better understanding of your position if you define the phrase "finish the job in Iraq."

 

[rikzilla]

I'll have a better understanding of your position if you define the phrase "finish the job in Iraq."

Look, you can likely answer that question yourself. It's not that hard to think of even though it is quite a bit harder to accomplish.

We leave behind a duly elected legitimate representative government that is capable of defending itself from all enemies both foreign and domestic. We leave behind a populace educated in their rights and dedicated to continuuing the democratic process and holding their own leaders responsible at the voting booth without fear. Finally; we don't leave them behind at all but boost them up with continued economic assistance and MFN trading status. We foster a healthy economy,...and yes...we leave behind some US airbases just as we did on Okinawa, Frankfurt and Ramstein. If all goes well our new prosperous friends won't mind a bit.

-z

In short we must leave behind a stable democracy just as we did in West Germany and Japan after that terrible war.

 

[Mycroft]

In short we must leave behind a stable democracy just as we did in West Germany and Japan after that terrible war.

Amen, brother!

I understand and sympathize with those that felt we should not have gone to war to begin with. I was in that camp myself. What I don’t understand is those in the anti-war camp that pretend their feelings are motivated by anything but selfishness.

Transitioning from a brutal dictatorship to a thriving democracy is not an easy and swift transition. We have begun this work, and now it is our responsibility to complete it.

I can sympathize and understand those that criticize the Bush administration for not doing this job well, but the problem is that the dialogue isn’t on how best to accomplish these goals, bit if the job should be done at all. This is why I’m losing faith with the left.

 

[irishman]

Look, you can likely answer that question yourself. It's not that hard to think of even though it is quite a bit harder to accomplish.

We leave behind a duly elected legitimate representative government that is capable of defending itself from all enemies both foreign and domestic. We leave behind a populace educated in their rights and dedicated to continuuing the democratic process and holding their own leaders responsible at the voting booth without fear. Finally; we don't leave them behind at all but boost them up with continued economic assistance and MFN trading status. We foster a healthy economy,...and yes...we leave behind some US airbases just as we did on Okinawa, Frankfurt and Ramstein. If all goes well our new prosperous friends won't mind a bit.

-z

In short we must leave behind a stable democracy just as we did in West Germany and Japan after that terrible war.

Eh, but didn't the US create (prop up/support/arm/fund) the very system in Iraq that it now want to replace. The US wants democracy in other states only when it suits it's own interest, rather than democracy for democracy's own sake. Maybe I remember wrongly, but hasn't Saudi been shown to have been involved in 911?

 

[rikzilla]

Eh, but didn't the US create (prop up/support/arm/fund) the very system in Iraq that it now want to replace. The US wants democracy in other states only when it suits it's own interest, rather than democracy for democracy's own sake. Maybe I remember wrongly, but hasn't Saudi been shown to have been involved in 911?

Read Sharansky...or at least go to the JREF political book club at the top of the main forum page and click on the threads there. Bush has stated publicly that Sharansky is his favorite author and that he is promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan because he believes in Sharansky's ideas.

You are correct that in many instances in the past the US has supported dictatorships because of short-term national interests. Sharansky tells us this is stupidity as in the long term the democracy that hates us is still more stable and less dangerous that the tyranny that loves us. Tyrannies produce terrorists because the people have no political power or voice....democracies do not tend to produce terrorists; we do have isolated kooks; but not organised terrorism...this is because the people have political options.

There is an interesting aside in Sharansky's book which relates the results of a public poll in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The majority of the people of Iran polled did not hate America; yet the majority in Saudi did. Sharansky says this is likely because America is seen as being true to it's ideals of freedom and justice since we do not support the tyranny in Iran. Yet the Saudis see us as hypocrites to those same ideals since we are seen to support the tyranny ruling Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this is why the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi??

Anyway, read Sharansky's book...it's well written and worth your time. Not a polemic!!

-z

BTW...Welcome to the party!!

 

[Bjorn]

Bush has stated publicly that Sharansky is his favorite author and that he is promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan because he believes in Sharansky's ideas.

Sharansky says [....] the Saudis see us as hypocrites to those same ideals since we are seen to support the tyranny ruling Saudi Arabia.

If he is promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan because he believes in Sharansky's ideas, why not in Saudi Arabia?

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
There is an interesting aside in Sharansky's book which relates the results of a public poll in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The majority of the people of Iran polled did not hate America; yet the majority in Saudi did. Sharansky says this is likely because America is seen as being true to it's ideals of freedom and justice since we do not support the tyranny in Iran. Yet the Saudis see us as hypocrites to those same ideals since we are seen to support the tyranny ruling Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this is why the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi??
*snip*

The US do not support tyranny in Iran? I guess that result is because most people there are too young to remember the shah...

 

[Ziggurat]

If he is promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan because he believes in Sharansky's ideas, why not in Saudi Arabia?

Why do you think he isn't trying to promote democracy in Saudi Arabia? The first elections in that country EVER were held after our Iraq invasion - it was a limited step towards democratic reform, to be sure, but it was a step nonetheless. So unless you're actually advocating invading Saudi Arabia (are you?) then I don't see how you've got a point. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are not the same, and there's no reason to expect the methods used to promote democracy in the two countries need to be the same either.

 

[Ziggurat]

The US do not support tyranny in Iran? I guess that result is because most people there are too young to remember the shah...

Which would kind of make that past tense, wouldn't it?

 

[rikzilla]

If he is promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan because he believes in Sharansky's ideas, why not in Saudi Arabia?

Harder nut to crack? I don't know. You'd need to ask him. Personally I think their time will come. They still need us more than we need them. Patience grasshopper.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

The US do not support tyranny in Iran? I guess that result is because most people there are too young to remember the shah...

Ziggy's right. That was then, this is now.
[Garth] Live in the now man! [/Garth]

Hell, when the Shah was in power Sharansky was still shovelling snow in the gulag.

-z

 

[Chaos]

Ziggy's right. That was then, this is now.
[Garth] Live in the now man! [/Garth]

Hell, when the Shah was in power Sharansky was still shovelling snow in the gulag.

-z

The point is the same: the US does not, by default, support democracy and oppose tyranny in Iran; they support whoever cooperates with them, and oppose whoever doesn´t.

 

[rikzilla]

The point is the same: the US does not, by default, support democracy and oppose tyranny in Iran; they support whoever cooperates with them, and oppose whoever doesn´t.

I think that's changing...and if/when it does the President who will be remembered as starting this good trend will be none other than you know who.

Besides....it's stupid to base foreign policy on short term goals. Sharansky is right...supporting democracy is the only goal that makes sense long term.

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I think that's changing...and if/when it does the President who will be remembered as starting this good trend will be none other than you know who.

Besides....it's stupid to base foreign policy on short term goals. Sharansky is right...supporting democracy is the only goal that makes sense long term.

-z

What makes you say it's changing. I don't see any evidence that would point to such a conclusion. We still seem to subscribe to the 'He may be a B@st@rd but he's our B@st@rd" philosophy, the only change in recent years is a greater willingness to bomb B@st@rds who are not 'ours'. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Bjorn]

Why do you think he isn't trying to promote democracy in Saudi Arabia? The first elections in that country EVER were held after our Iraq invasion - it was a limited step towards democratic reform, to be sure, but it was a step nonetheless. So unless you're actually advocating invading Saudi Arabia (are you?) then I don't see how you've got a point. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are not the same, and there's no reason to expect the methods used to promote democracy in the two countries need to be the same either.

I thought Sharansky's point was that being friendly to dictators, even if this is "good for us" in the short term, hurts us in the long run. Is my interpretation wrong? Do you disagree with Rik's "the tyranny ruling Saudi Arabia"?

 

[Bjorn]

Harder nut to crack? I don't know. You'd need to ask him. Personally I think their time will come. They still need us more than we need them. Patience grasshopper.

-z

How is that compatible with Sharansky's ideas?

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought Sharansky's point was that being friendly to dictators, even if this is "good for us" in the short term, hurts us in the long run. Is my interpretation wrong? Do you disagree with Rik's "the tyranny ruling Saudi Arabia"?

Yes, your interpretation misses much of the substance of Sharansky's views. It's more correct to say that Sharansky considers dictatorships as inherently threatening to others, and that the old "realist" notion that our security is best ensured through stability of whatever the current arrangement may be is false. That does not mean that one can never work with or cooperate with dictators, that we must always be hostile to them, but rather that we should always pressure them towards democratic reforms. The exact form this pressure should take isn't always the same, and sometimes it becomes easier to apply effective pressure when you're also cooperating on other areas (because your cooperation can give you leverage).

In regards to Saudi Arabia in particular, I cannot speak for Rik, but yes, they're a tyranny. But the rulers, hostile though they are to many of our interests, are not irrational. They can be influenced. Simply being being diplomatically hostile to them would not really accomplish much, and forcibly overthrowing them is not a realistic option (Sharansky himself never advocated attempting something like that against the USSR either). Sometimes I feel like we're not pressuring them enough, yes, but the fact that we haven't pulled an Iraq on Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we've somehow violated the principle of promoting democracy. Keep in mind also that much of the most successful diplomatic pressure against the USSR was also applied in the context of cooperation or negotiation on areas of mutual interest.

 

[Ziggurat]

We still seem to subscribe to the 'He may be a B@st@rd but he's our B@st@rd" philosophy, the only change in recent years is a greater willingness to bomb B@st@rds who are not 'ours'.

Actually, I'd say Uzbekistan is a pretty good counterpoint. They're an oppressive dictatorship, but we allied with them out of necessity to get airbases for our operations in Afghanistan. A lot of people accused us of playing the old "our bastard" game you refer to. But when they started to really misbehave, putting down domestic protests in Andijan rather violently earlier this year, we made rather loud and vigorous protests, calling for an international investigation of the incident. So they asked us to leave. And we did. We're no longer supporting them, because they misbehaved on a human rights issue. Had we chosen to ignore their human rights abuses, we could have quite easily (the opposition is backed in no small part by Islamic radicals, who are hardly our friends). We could have kept them as "our bastards", but we didn't.