On the Iraq/terrorism link, which is weak compared to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran I admit, is two facts with Iraq. One, there were pockets of terrorists in northern Iraq that Sadaam would not/could not evict. Two, he was providing funding to families of dead Palestinian suicide bombers. The latter more than the former isn't exactly a benign tie to terrorism. What do you think? Now, if you wanted to argue there were other threats we should have gone for first or even that Iraq didn't match up to the risk-reward formula, again, that's fair. But that's not the problem you have, is it?
On the "futile" angle, we've been hearing from other countries that what America was trying to do was impossible for...well, before we declared independence from England and beat the tar out of them, created a lasting democracy, became an economic superpower, defeated the Soviet Union...and defeating those two countries that were supposed to cause "quagmires". So, if you don't mind me saying, your calls of futility...fall on deaf ears and have done so for...longer than I've been alive. The United States has been in the business of doing what the rest of the world can not for 238 years, long before oil was a gleam in a Texan's eye ;). That's a track record I'm willing to stand on.
As to the concept that we run around willy-nilly destroying anyone we don't like, it hasn't exactly worked that way. We gave the Taliban a chance to give up Bin Laden and they refused. We gave Sadaam a chance to quit playing games with the inspectors and do full disclosure of past systems (which we now know why he wouldn't reveal them) and he refused. They chose to stand tall to the alliance...which puzzled me because it's hard to stand tall when they get squashed by America and its MANY allies. Seriously, our list of supporters is much longer than your list of detractors.
Do you think that the families of the 200 dead Spaniards in Madrid believe "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" or that their family members died to a freak mass occurance of spontaneous human combustion? What about the dead in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bali, and hundreds more? Need I also remind you that two groups which would symbolize the peace and negotiation you so dearly embrace, namely the United Nations and the Red Cross, were the first two non-US groups to be attacked by terrorists in Iraq and now the terrorists have moved on to focusing on Iraqi civilians? They don't give a damn about motives and they surely don't give a damn about non-aggression. Terrorists can not be appeased. That leads to one last point.
This is called playing defense. The only way to keep the intelligence tight enough to prevent attack would be to become totalitarian regimes ourselves and I have enough problems with the Patriot act already thank you very much. We're trying to undercut support by creating democracy and prosperity in the countries where it comes from. Is it a fool's game? Perhaps, time will tell but I already told you how I feel about foreign predictions of futility. But that goes into your offering support to populist governments...like the new ones in Afghanistan and Iraq (hopefully). And finally, the same requirement for police actions holds the same in downtown Ontario as it does for downtown Baghdad or for that matter downtown Belgrade in Serbia, you can not have an effective police force without the support of the people you are policing. Seriously, ask the people in Kosovo and Serbia, let alone Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia how international police actions do to better the situations there.
But one final thing. That support I was talking about? The building Iraqi police force along with their dead brothers, killed by terrorists afraid of the stability they are bringing, are the solemn demonstration of the support that an effective police action, domestic instead of international, can bring.
On the "futile" angle, we've been hearing from other countries that what America was trying to do was impossible for...well, before we declared independence from England and beat the tar out of them, created a lasting democracy, became an economic superpower, defeated the Soviet Union...and defeating those two countries that were supposed to cause "quagmires". So, if you don't mind me saying, your calls of futility...fall on deaf ears and have done so for...longer than I've been alive. The United States has been in the business of doing what the rest of the world can not for 238 years, long before oil was a gleam in a Texan's eye ;). That's a track record I'm willing to stand on.
As to the concept that we run around willy-nilly destroying anyone we don't like, it hasn't exactly worked that way. We gave the Taliban a chance to give up Bin Laden and they refused. We gave Sadaam a chance to quit playing games with the inspectors and do full disclosure of past systems (which we now know why he wouldn't reveal them) and he refused. They chose to stand tall to the alliance...which puzzled me because it's hard to stand tall when they get squashed by America and its MANY allies. Seriously, our list of supporters is much longer than your list of detractors.
Do you think that the families of the 200 dead Spaniards in Madrid believe "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" or that their family members died to a freak mass occurance of spontaneous human combustion? What about the dead in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bali, and hundreds more? Need I also remind you that two groups which would symbolize the peace and negotiation you so dearly embrace, namely the United Nations and the Red Cross, were the first two non-US groups to be attacked by terrorists in Iraq and now the terrorists have moved on to focusing on Iraqi civilians? They don't give a damn about motives and they surely don't give a damn about non-aggression. Terrorists can not be appeased. That leads to one last point.
Quote:There may be ways to significantly set back terrorism. Keep the intelligence networks tight. Undercut support for terrorist networks by removing their causes. Offer support to populist governments rather than oppressive ones. International police actions, rather than full-scale wars.
This is called playing defense. The only way to keep the intelligence tight enough to prevent attack would be to become totalitarian regimes ourselves and I have enough problems with the Patriot act already thank you very much. We're trying to undercut support by creating democracy and prosperity in the countries where it comes from. Is it a fool's game? Perhaps, time will tell but I already told you how I feel about foreign predictions of futility. But that goes into your offering support to populist governments...like the new ones in Afghanistan and Iraq (hopefully). And finally, the same requirement for police actions holds the same in downtown Ontario as it does for downtown Baghdad or for that matter downtown Belgrade in Serbia, you can not have an effective police force without the support of the people you are policing. Seriously, ask the people in Kosovo and Serbia, let alone Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia how international police actions do to better the situations there.
But one final thing. That support I was talking about? The building Iraqi police force along with their dead brothers, killed by terrorists afraid of the stability they are bringing, are the solemn demonstration of the support that an effective police action, domestic instead of international, can bring.