Dealing with Terrorism?

[Kerberos]

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.

Realism never said any such thing. Realism states that the internal form of governement does not significantly affect external behavior and thus shouldn't concern us, but there's nothing in realism that rules out opposing a siting regime, be it democratic or dictatorial.

 

[3point14]

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.

Given that Bush's claimed favorite childhood book was one that wasn't published until 1969, I'd take with a pinch of salt any claims about favorite authors.


(edited to fix my dodgy formatting)

 

[irishman]

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!!

Thanks for the welcome, I've been a long time lurker.

I do actually think the US was right in removing Saddam, though I can't see the current problems being resolved easily. Where I'm from we like to preach a lot but yet don't have any military commitments to back those up!!!!

 

[rikzilla]

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.

First it's my belief it's changing. This belief is fostered by GWB's public embrace of Sharansky's ideas which I think are way overdue. My other reasons are more empirical. If things were not changed we would not be fostering this messy democratic process in Iraq. Easier to just put Chalabi on Saddam's throne and prop him up while turning a blind eye to how he represses dissent. Same with Afghanistan. It would be more painless than what we're doing now and our short term security goals would be met...but it would be a recipe for the creation of instability and more terrorism at some future time.

The great thing about Sharansky's ideas is that they are already demonstrating results within the Arab world. In Lebanon and Egypt we see democracy movements invigorated by the Iraqi example. We see tyrants in Libya and Syria put on notice that they must change their ways if they are to continue much longer in power and they have. Sharanskism does not demand that we invade every non-free nation and reform their system for them. The example of a democratic Iraq will continue to wear away at the tyrannies in SA, Syria, and Iran...perhaps even NK. That's why it's so important to succeed there. We win when Iraq becomes an example of an un-free ME nation which now governs itself through representative democracy. If we run and lose there we would embolden every tyrant and jihadi on the planet.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

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"?

I agree Bjorn. I think it's a long-term mistake to make nice with the Sauds and Gen. Musharraf. It is incompatible with Sharansky on it's face. But still and all GWB has lent more of his power to Sharansky's ideas than any other POTUS has. Clinton also thought Sharansky was right with his ideas on holding Arafat responsible for his obligations under Oslo...but Clinton for some reason did not follow through.

So, even half measures are better than doing things the old way.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

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.

Wow...you can speak for me anytime Ziggy...you laid it out a lot better than I have!

-z

 

[Mephisto]

We're gonna need a bigger pig.

*LOL* Good one, manny!

 

[rikzilla]

Thanks for the welcome, I've been a long time lurker.

I do actually think the US was right in removing Saddam, though I can't see the current problems being resolved easily. Where I'm from we like to preach a lot but yet don't have any military commitments to back those up!!!!

It's good for us to get an infusion of new blood! Therefore we welcome you in the most selfish of ways!

As far as Saddam goes...well we should not have removed him. The "world" led through a democratic and uncorrupted UN should have removed him in the mid-90's when he demonstrated time and again that he was unworthy of even the merest degree of trust. Instead corrupt UN officials dealt with him in secret and made it plain to every other tin-pot dictator in the world that they could get away with just about anything as long as the right people got a big check....even if that big check was money ear-marked for relief.

-z

 

[Mephisto]

The problem with this is that we dont need take only militant islamic people. If the United States represents is self as a land of opporunity only to its people, and a dicator to the world. Third world countries like those of the Middle East would be afraid of us. An eye for an eye is a radical response to a radical terrorist group. It is the only language they do speak; so if they recieve this response they will understand the United States will not tolorate terrorism and will not negotiate, unless the loss of life is more on the terrorist side. It is not lunatic. I wish it wasnt a necessary cause, but truthfully it is the only thing that would speak louder then words to them. The only other responce is that if it fails, we nuke Mecca with the largest yield bomb we have using Norads Atlas targeting system. Precise targeting, no warning we are going to bomb them. We would cripple their pilgrimage and place a message that the terrorist understand. Radical terriorism calls for Radical Rules of Engagement.

Wow, I realized this tirade sounds really familiar, so I took some liberties with the wording. See if you recognize the rhetoric?
______

The problem with this is that we need to protect the islamic people. If the fundamentalist Muslim world represents itself as the way to heaven only because those of its people who are willing to die can we fight the dictators of the world. Countries like those of the West would be afraid of us. An eye for an eye is a radical response to the Great Satan. It is the only language they do speak; so if they recieve this response they will understand the Muslim world will not tolorate invasion by infidels and will not negotiate It is not lunatic. I wish it wasnt necessary, but truthfully it is the only thing that would speak louder then words to them. The only other responce is that if it fails, we nuke Washington and New York with the largest yield bomb we have using box cutters and shoeless little old ladys in airplanes. Precise targeting, no warning we are going to bomb them. We would cripple their economy and place a message that the Western infidels understand. Imperialism by the infidels calls for the utmost sacrifice from true Muslims everywhere.
________

Obviously I didn't take the time to correct the horrible spelling and grammar, but I think we've heard this song before . . .

 

[clk]

Yep, they're there exchanging gunshots with American soldiers. That's fine with me because that's what American soldiers get paid to do. I don't.

Ah, ain't it grand?
So if there is major fighting in Iraq, then it's because the enemy is desperate. And it's fine that insurgents are flooding into the country and shooting at American soldiers. Hell, it's a great thing.
But if Iraq had gone as planned, and we had converted it to a democracy quickly without any insurgent attacks, then Bush would undoubtedly have used the whole 'Mission Accomplished' aircraft carrier thing during his entire campaign. And used every opportunity that he had to discuss how great the war in Iraq went in the fight against terrorism. I wonder, though, why didn't any Republican predict that the insurgency was going to happen as it did? If Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror, then why didn't they prepare and plan for the insurgency? I mean, it WAS part of the plan that terrorists would flood in from all over the world to fight us, right?

Did you think nobody would see your trick? You are creating a beautiful win-win situation for you. No matter what happens, you figure out a way to spin it into something positive. But everybody knows that Bush f*cked up, big time. Nothing you say can change the truth.

 

[rikzilla]

Ah, ain't it grand?
So if there is major fighting in Iraq, then it's because the enemy is desperate. And it's fine that insurgents are flooding into the country and shooting at American soldiers. Hell, it's a great thing.
But if Iraq had gone as planned, and we had converted it to a democracy quickly without any insurgent attacks, then Bush would undoubtedly have used the whole 'Mission Accomplished' aircraft carrier thing during his entire campaign. And used every opportunity that he had to discuss how great the war in Iraq went in the fight against terrorism. I wonder, though, why didn't any Republican predict that the insurgency was going to happen as it did? If Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror, then why didn't they prepare and plan for the insurgency? I mean, it WAS part of the plan that terrorists would flood in from all over the world to fight us, right?

Did you think nobody would see your trick? You are creating a beautiful win-win situation for you. No matter what happens, you figure out a way to spin it into something positive. But everybody knows that Bush f*cked up, big time. Nothing you say can change the truth.

Before OIF Iraq was a terrorism generator. Now it's a terrorism sink. That's big progress all by itself. Creating an arena in which the terrorist is placed on the same ground as the US Army and Marines creates a target rich environment for these troops. It's pretty easy to see the advantages of such a strategy for the person blessed with even the tiniest bit of common sense.

-z

 

[clk]

Before OIF Iraq was a terrorism generator. Now it's a terrorism sink. That's big progress all by itself. Creating an arena in which the terrorist is placed on the same ground as the US Army and Marines creates a target rich environment for these troops. It's pretty easy to see the advantages of such a strategy for the person blessed with even the tiniest bit of common sense.

Thanks for proving my point. So basically, it's a good thing that insurgents are flooding into Iraq and killing dozens of people per day?

I wonder, though, if what you say is true, then why didn't any Republican predict that the insurgency was going to happen as it did? If Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror, then why didn't they prepare and plan for the insurgency? I mean, it WAS part of the plan that terrorists would flood in from all over the world to fight us, right? So why was Bush caught completely off-guard? Is he just incompetent?

 

[Chaos]

Before OIF Iraq was a terrorism generator. Now it's a terrorism sink. That's big progress all by itself. Creating an arena in which the terrorist is placed on the same ground as the US Army and Marines creates a target rich environment for these troops. It's pretty easy to see the advantages of such a strategy for the person blessed with even the tiniest bit of common sense.

-z

Iraq was a terrorism generator? Wow. I´d really like to see any evidence for that - besides Saddam providing some token financial support to the families of suicide bombers to get popular with the "I hate Israel" crowd.

 

[DavidJames]

Before OIF Iraq was a terrorism generator. Now it's a terrorism sink. That's big progress all by itself. Creating an arena in which the terrorist is placed on the same ground as the US Army and Marines creates a target rich environment for these troops. It's pretty easy to see the advantages of such a strategy for the person blessed with even the tiniest bit of common sense.

-z

Do you make this up as you go? I sure would like to see the UN presentation or the State of the Union text that mentions that.

 

[rikzilla]

Do you make this up as you go? I sure would like to see the UN presentation or the State of the Union text that mentions that.

Read "End Game" by Scott Ritter.

...and no...I'm not making anything up.

-z

 

[Shadownexius]

The United Nations (UN) is the largest joint union/ organization that wastes money. It is founded on the principles of enforcing without the power to back it up. The United Nations serves only as UN inspection officals, nothing else they do is worth funding from this country. Second if you belive that Iraq is the spawn of terrorist central your wrong. Iraq is a religiously driven, third world country, that hardly deserves our respect and morality. You dont treat radicalists with compassion, because they don't respond to compassion with compassion, but rather with more ethusiasium towards their cause. We suppress radicalist with consquences that in themselve are radical, not by making them and example of how Democracy works in America and how it has changed Iraq for the better. The best example of this is the French:
In France your would be considered a national hero if you blow up a McDonalds. Why? Because the French have a boycott on McDonalds, and each year that a french citizen blows one up, the radicalist that lead this boycott and lead the nation, are awarding them with honor for their service. We can't allow these countries that,

"A nation that values it's privileges above its principles soon loses both."
--Eisenhower

to continue with these ridiculious attacks on us.
That said, I am sick of this country giving the privileges of our nation to terrorist, radicalist, and dicators. We don't need to give Sadam a fair trial, it serves no purpose. You capture him and execute them on live television the same way they execute hostiages. A nation that is respected by itself and it's allies and feared by all other nations, countries, and people of the world is more successful in maintaining power as superpower.

 

[DavidJames]

Read "End Game" by Scott Ritter.

...and no...I'm not making anything up.

-z

so what you are saying is you've got nothing but that book. Nothing from the adminstration to back up your claims.

 

[rikzilla]

so what you are saying is you've got nothing but that book. Nothing from the adminstration to back up your claims.

David,
I mention Scott Ritter because he is a bit of a darling of the left, and hence someone that a person such as yourself (liberal, anti-war) might be expected to believe. Scott Ritter was a UNSCOM inspector in Iraq during the 90's. In his book he spoke of finding Mukhabarrat terrorism schools...he also spoke of uncovering documents which detailed the testing of chemical and biowar weapons on political prisoners. That Saddam Hussein was an active supporter and exporter of terrorism is not even controversial. Check your facts.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

The United Nations (UN) is the largest joint union/ organization that wastes money. It is founded on the principles of enforcing without the power to back it up. The United Nations serves only as UN inspection officals, nothing else they do is worth funding from this country. Second if you belive that Iraq is the spawn of terrorist central your wrong. Iraq is a religiously driven, third world country, that hardly deserves our respect and morality. You dont treat radicalists with compassion, because they don't respond to compassion with compassion, but rather with more ethusiasium towards their cause. We suppress radicalist with consquences that in themselve are radical, not by making them and example of how Democracy works in America and how it has changed Iraq for the better. The best example of this is the French:
In France your would be considered a national hero if you blow up a McDonalds. Why? Because the French have a boycott on McDonalds, and each year that a french citizen blows one up, the radicalist that lead this boycott and lead the nation, are awarding them with honor for their service. We can't allow these countries that,

"A nation that values it's privileges above its principles soon loses both."
--Eisenhower

to continue with these ridiculious attacks on us.
That said, I am sick of this country giving the privileges of our nation to terrorist, radicalist, and dicators. We don't need to give Sadam a fair trial, it serves no purpose. You capture him and execute them on live television the same way they execute hostiages. A nation that is respected by itself and it's allies and feared by all other nations, countries, and people of the world is more successful in maintaining power as superpower.

I agree that the UN is less than useless. I agree that the French are fairly ridiculous. I think Eisenhower was a swell guy. But that last paragraph of yours betrays the workings of a shallow and dangerous mind. You are wrong...so wrong that it would be impossible to even discuss why with you. Your ideas are both evil and counterproductive. Ahh the banality of evil....

-z

 

[Elind]

I love all opinions, so post your own idea on how to take care of terrorism, but please be respectful of posting whether your agree or disagree without being an A**WHOLE!!!

That's a really A*sWHOLE!!! comment that flushes anything else you may have said.