Why is diplomacy crucial in the fight against terrorism?

[Cyrus]

OBL and the other leaders of these groups don't seem to be quite so reasonable; they just seem like maniacs.

Well, when you live and grow up in a region that has nothing but war your whole life, people tend to start going crazy after seeing people killed and blown up on a daily basis. Look at all the people that come back to the U.S after war, Vietnam Vets, Gulf War Vets, a lot of them start to go nuts after seeing so much violence.

Maybe. I'm not so sure, though.

I am positive. If you are not sure, go through his reasons for war in (Q1) one more time. Look how many of them you will find that have to do with this double standard. It would be a MAJOR victory for both sides if a fair policy was used in the middle east. Oil prices would go down, terrorists would stop, and people in the middle east would not be so hostile to the US anymore.

As for the nuclear weapons to Israel, we could have prevented that by not giving it to them in the first place. We could also stop sending them billions each year until they give them up. Look what I said In the previous post about giving weapons to the middle east to test the latest and greatest out. What does the Israeli army use? US appache gunships, F-16's, M1-A1 abrams tanks, M16's. Good ole made in the USA!

What does Iran use? F-14's (80 of them, of which only 20 or so still can fly today), F-4's (223 of them), Chinook's (70 of them), Agusta/Bell 206,Agusta/Bell 212, C-130's, Boeing 707's,F-5 Freedom Fighter,Boeing 727, Boeing 747,Lockheed JetStar, Bell AH-1J Cobra Attack Helicopter, good ole made in the USA!

What does afganistan use? Good ole hand held rocket launchers, made in the USA! What happened there, we gave a bunch of lunatics too many of our top of the line heat seaking missles, and now they are pointing them at us...OOPS!?

We gave Iraq chemical weapons in the early 80's, and then we go to war with them today because they have chemical weapons? I guess its only ok to use chemical weapons on Iranian civilians, not US civilians. Aircraft: 3 x C-130E Hercules,16x UH-1H Iroquois, 8 x CH-2000, 5xBell 206)


If we want to have peace in the middle east, for crying out loud, let's at least try to have policy that reflects this. We have got to stop selling these weapons for bottom dollar prices. Our economy is huge, the selling of arms to 3rd world countries is NOT supporting our economy, therefore, one has to question exactly WHY are we doing things like this?

I say stop selling everyone in the middle east anything. If they run out of bullets, they can go to Russia or China to buy them. Then when Russia and China starts slipping up, the terrorists can go after them and not us. In order to stop terrorism, we need to stop giving reason to create terroism, because for a citizen living in the middle east that sees all of the above going on, its littlewonder why they turn to terrorism.

 

[SOS2008]

I’m not condoning bin Laden’s terrorist tactics. However, it is frustrating that Americans can’t wrap their heads around the cause-effect of U.S. policy in the history of these countries. I agree that Americans have very short memories, and assuming they even watch a reliable news source, very shallow comprehension. This is truly the root of the problem. We need a society and education system that encourages Americans to care about the world and what goes on around them. One that reinforces that it is good to follow current events, good to talk politics, and good to be active—most notably to vote. Americans need to realize that it is their responsibility to question authority, not blindly follow it. That it is not unpatriotic to be objective and give thought to what the U.S. may do to improve conditions in the world other than military interventions. Really most are so prideful and defensive they can’t get past that point.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)We gave Iraq chemical weapons in the early 80's ...(snip)

When constructing a political argument, it's best to avoid fabrication of outright whoppers --- kinda destroys the credibility of other elements of your argument that might be worth examining.

 

[Cyrus]

When constructing a political argument, it's best to avoid fabrication of outright whoppers --- kinda destroys the credibility of other elements of your argument that might be worth examining.

No, its outright fact. Sorry, your wrong. It was on the news a few years ago. Here, read this my friend. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

So what was he doing there, having Tea with sadam? Give me a break. The only credability lacking here is your knowledge of middle east policy.

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

You should spend more time reading on US-middle east policy, less time criticizing what you don't have a clue about.

 

[Xenophon]

So what's the point of this thread now? Could the two sides give a basic statement or something, cause you're all quoting each other and it's looking more like a boxing match than a debate (of sorts). It's hard for us wannabees to add on and get a good feedback if we can't put our finger on what your arguing.

-Xenophon

Random quote: “The sweetest of all sounds is praise.”:tongue2:

 

[Cyrus]

The point is in the first post by the person that started the thread. In sum, it is about dealing with terrorism and how to resolve it through other means than just fighting. We are debating if that is possible.

Could the two sides give a basic statement or something, cause you're all quoting each other and it's looking more like a boxing match than a debate (of sorts).

That is what a debate is. No basic statements from me. I am not going to dumb it down, sorry.

It's hard for us wannabees to add on and get a good feedback if we can't put our finger on what your arguing.

Again, read through all the posts, but if you don't understand what we are arguing, I would suggest you don't try to reply without having the proper background and knowledge, or your words will be ignored and torn to shreads! There is no mercy in this thread, sorry.

 

[Xenophon]

There is no mercy in this thread, sorry.

Lol, no mercy. All right, I'll give it a shot. Terrorism in the Middle East is not just a group of guys running around shooting at our troops. It's the us against the world from their perspective. Looking back, the Islamic states have been played against each other.

They have received very little help from the West during the Cold War because of fear of angering the Soviet Union (maybe). Left to fend for themselves, they fall back on tribal loyalties (Afghanistan and Pakistan) or turn into dictatorships or monarchies (the rest of the countries) because democracy cannot grow in impovershed states, unfortunately.

The terrorists take this and twist it to the people, making us the bad guys because we refuse to help. They hide behind religion as well, something that the common people find comforting. If religion supports terrorism, then why shouldn't John Doe?

The way I believe we need to defeat terrorists is to reach out to the people and give those countries the help/ respect they deserve. We have ignored them too long and now we have to play catch up as a country in order to regain their respect (if we ever had it). By reaching out to the people and gaining their support, we can undermine terrorist support.

The building of schools in Iraq, sure a small thing, is one step forward. Unfortunately, we need to make up for our steps back first and stop the steps back we are making at the moment, such as the Pakistanian incident.

Personally, I think Islam is not the problem. People will continue to use religion for personal gain from now until the end of time most likely, not mentioning what already has happened. Somehow, Islamic clerics need to reach the people showing that Islam does not support the terrorists.

-Xenophon

Okay tear it apart you unmerciful boxers.

 

[Xenophon]

By the way, you summed it up just fine, cyrus.

 

[Cyrus]

I won't tear it appart, because you are more or less on the ball. But its a very simplified assesment. It lacks any solid grounds, but that's ok, at least you have the correct premise, to some degree. Basically what you wrote has already been talked about if you read the earlier posts.

 

[Xenophon]

Alright, great. Sorry about the lack of details.

 

[Bystander]

(snip) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

...Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad ...

So what was he doing there, having Tea with sadam? (snip)

washington post:
The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Lesson 2: When defending a whopper, it's best to read the entirety of a source apparently supporting said whopper rather than the first 5 obligatory, inflammatory, editorially inserted lead paragraphs. Dobbs goes on in paragraphs 7-37 to gainsay the content of 1-5. Paragraph 6 looks to be a redaction of whatever Dobbs submitted as a lead paragraph, and is used as the transition between the editorial slant and the actual story.
Paragraph 2 of the story, Cyrus' first excerpt, is best read in context with paragraphs 6,

Wash. Post: Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre(sic, presumably, "pro")-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

7, 8, 13, 19, 31, and 37,

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior.(my emphasis) History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

The implicit assumption in paragraph 6 that the Iraqis are simple savages who are unable on their own to develop a chemical warfare capability doesn't stand up under any examination of facts; http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1018.5/MR1018.5.chap5.html presents some of what was learned following Gulf I about Iraq's chemical weapons programs.

The discovery that Iraq had substantial stocks of cyclosarin was interesting because, although this agent was fairly well known, no major power had adopted it. Iraq may have selected it to provide a more persistent and percutaneously effective agent than sarin, one that also has formidable inhalation toxicity. With a sarin production capability, Iraq may have found it easier to produce cyclosarin than to develop VX. However, Sidell, Takafuji, and Franz (1997) indicates that Iraq may have produced cyclosarin because precursor chemicals for sarin--but not those for cyclosarin (e.g., cyclohexyl alcohol)--had been embargoed(my emphasis).

Cyrus' second excerpt, part of paragraph 5, reads more clearly in context with paragraphs 3

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the
years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

24, 26, 27, 28,

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program.

I will recommend a diversion to another piece from the W. Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10804-2001Nov24?language=printer . Someone else can bug Moonbear for a rundown on anthrax vaccine production, how many strains, what advantages and disadvantages are to be had from producing vaccines from single strains or many strains, and annual figures for livestock losses, and vaccine use.

(cont. 28)The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions ("within the government" seems to have been editorially omitted. The sources of "widespread suspicion" would be more directly cited otherwise.) that they were being used for chemical warfare.

and 35

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents (my emphasis). An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

Anthrax and pesticides? Agricultural assistance. Yeah, everybody knew better at the time. Several hundred tons of pesticides were uncovered before 3rd Div. got to Baghdad, but that isn't evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons programs. There's a headline: "Washington Post reports Iraqis did have chemical weapons!"
Getting back to the OP and the point of the thread, is there any reason to think that (O,U)BL is any more sincere than Hussein, that he speaks for anyone but a handful of hoodlums, that he can even control that handful, or that he is in any way regarded or revered by the general populace of SW Asia as representative or respectful of the culture, institutions, and politics of the area?
Anttech omitted to sketch the changes in public opinion toward the IRA factions, and whoever the loyalist hooligan factions happen to be, over the past 5-10 years; specifically, that far from being supported, they were semi-tolerated, and that that tolerance vanished, and the public's message to all parties was, " Three choices: Straighten up! Get out of the country! Be run out of the country!" Then, and only then did it happen that, "... the Brittish goverment/ and Irish goverments sat round a table with them, and look what happened."
Are there glimmerings of a public backlash in SW Asia? It takes a really squinty look through the rose-colored glasses to say, "Yes." Is it of the magnitude that has for the moment (don't expect it to last) settled the IRA? No. Is public interest and participation in the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan real and sustainable? Cross your fingers and give 'em twenty years. We start seeing irate mobs trussing up troublemakers and running them down to police stations, I'll believe the "bearded freak" is ready to talk "in good faith." Got my doubts he's interested in turning into an insignificant splinter party of one, though.

 

[BobG]

Lol, no mercy. All right, I'll give it a shot. Terrorism in the Middle East is not just a group of guys running around shooting at our troops. It's the us against the world from their perspective. Looking back, the Islamic states have been played against each other.
They have received very little help from the West during the Cold War because of fear of angering the Soviet Union (maybe). Left to fend for themselves, they fall back on tribal loyalties (Afghanistan and Pakistan) or turn into dictatorships or monarchies (the rest of the countries) because democracy cannot grow in impovershed states, unfortunately.
The terrorists take this and twist it to the people, making us the bad guys because we refuse to help. They hide behind religion as well, something that the common people find comforting. If religion supports terrorism, then why shouldn't John Doe?
The way I believe we need to defeat terrorists is to reach out to the people and give those countries the help/ respect they deserve. We have ignored them too long and now we have to play catch up as a country in order to regain their respect (if we ever had it). By reaching out to the people and gaining their support, we can undermine terrorist support.
The building of schools in Iraq, sure a small thing, is one step forward. Unfortunately, we need to make up for our steps back first and stop the steps back we are making at the moment, such as the Pakistanian incident.
Personally, I think Islam is not the problem. People will continue to use religion for personal gain from now until the end of time most likely, not mentioning what already has happened. Somehow, Islamic clerics need to reach the people showing that Islam does not support the terrorists.
-Xenophon
Okay tear it apart you unmerciful boxers.

I agree with all but the second paragraph. With money from oil, many of the Middle East countries are not impoverished (although there is still very unbalanced wealth distribution). A few, such as Afghanistan may be impoverished, but the leadership of groups such as al-Qaeda have come from the richer countries (from middle and upper class families in the richer countries, in fact). In fact, money has resulted in a rapid influx of Western products and Western culture. It's the abandonment of the traditional Islamic values that has provided the main motivation for Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden.

I don't think fundamentalists would generate much support if they were calling for their fellow Arabs to throw away their cell phones, cars, and other luxuries. Instead, it's better to concentrate on the imbalances in wealth distribution (the condition of the lowest income levels improves a lot slower than the "upper class"), religion, and "evil" foreigners. If they make things bad enough, there's the hope that Western businesses will decide not to do business in the Middle East, thereby relieving Arabs of having to decide between traditional Islamic values and the values of consumerism.

 

[Cyrus]

Lesson 3: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

Do you want fries with your whopper sir? Open your eyes to the truth, please. Its already staring at you.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents (my emphasis). An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

my my my....you seem to be contradicting yourself my friend.

Anthrax and pesticides? Agricultural assistance. Yeah, everybody knew better at the time. Several hundred tons of pesticides were uncovered before 3rd Div. got to Baghdad, but that isn't evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons programs. There's a headline: "Washington Post reports Iraqis did have chemical weapons!"

No, I think the headline would read, "bystander, is nieve on the sale of those chemicals and lives in a dream world!" Dont you think if the US government themselves were worried that it could be turned into chemical weapons, it probably was not sold for the purpose of farming to begin with. Yeah, the US government will sell Iraq agricultural chemicals in the middle of a war that they want to see Iraq win, despite the fact that their use of chemical weapons is already known...O.K :uhh: Are you really that nieve?

(cont. 28)The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions ("within the government" seems to have been editorially omitted. The sources of "widespread suspicion" would be more directly cited otherwise.) that they were being used for chemical warfare.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The US already knew for a LONG TIME, that Iraq was using chemical weapons. This was nothing new to them. If they have such a big concern about it, in the end, why would they still approve the sale of these chemicals even if they knew it could be used as a weapon?

:uhh:, oh, did i mention, :uhh:

Common sense people, that's all I am asking for.
School is now in session.

 

[Xenophon]

I agree with all but the second paragraph. With money from oil, many of the Middle East countries are not impoverished (although there is still very unbalanced wealth distribution). A few, such as Afghanistan may be impoverished, but the leadership of groups such as al-Qaeda have come from the richer countries (from middle and upper class families in the richer countries, in fact). In fact, money has resulted in a rapid influx of Western products and Western culture. It's the abandonment of the traditional Islamic values that has provided the main motivation for Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden.
I don't think fundamentalists would generate much support if they were calling for their fellow Arabs to throw away their cell phones, cars, and other luxuries. Instead, it's better to concentrate on the imbalances in wealth distribution (the condition of the lowest income levels improves a lot slower than the "upper class"), religion, and "evil" foreigners. If they make things bad enough, there's the hope that Western businesses will decide not to do business in the Middle East, thereby relieving Arabs of having to decide between traditional Islamic values and the values of consumerism.

Well, I was kind of talkin about the common Joe when I said that the countries were poor. After all, some African dictators have a cool million or something close while there population is starving on less than a dollar a day (estimate). That also is a blueprint of China's class system if you add a couple dozen middle classers and multiply the whole idea. Nice catch. I guess I should be more specific.

-Xenophon