Full Version: Who will do more for Bad people
Bush's Pre emptive Doctrine or the Global approach of Kerry
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
Very tough questions Christopher, I'll do my best to answer them based on what I understand of both men's policies.
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
My answer here is Kerry's plan, plain and simple. The reason for this is that Bush isn't really combatting terrorism in Iraq and in fact is making things worse, but I'll get to that below.
The fight against terrorism in my mind is going to require several things:
1. We need to continue to increase security at home and reform our policies and agencies like the FBI and CIA so that they can work together more effectively.
2. I see the fight against terrorism as much more of a battle that uses a combination of intelligence (domestic and international), special forces, diplomacy and international cooperation.
3. We also have to combat the idea behind terrorism. To do this really means that we need a much better relationship with the middle east in general and we have a vested interest in helping them to improve their economies and quality of life. People that are happy and wealthy don't run off to terrorist training camps.
4. We need to work much harder in encouraging Israel and Palestine to come to a peace agreement. By supporting Israel, we are bringing down hatred upon ourselves. We can't leave them hanging so the only other option is to work for peace.
So, how does Kerry's plan fit in?
It starts here with implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission in full, something Bush has not yet agreed to do. It also involves greatly increasing funding for domestic security efforts. Just think what all that money spent on Iraq could have bought for our domestic security. Bush doesn't have a stellar record here and he has actually cut funding for some groups and certainly hasn't gone far enough in other areas. This is admittedly a partisan site, but feel free to fact check the stuff yourself most of it is completely accurate.
In order to work on point 2 above, it requires the United States to mend relationships with its traditional allies so that we can put our differences aside and work together. It requires that we get our credibility back so that we can convince our people and others that our intelligence is good and doesn't have some secret agenda.
Point 3 requires that we look to Arab countries not as simply interests (read: sources of oil) but as potential partners that we can work with to build a better future. We have to improve relations to the point that we can establish good trade relationships, etc. I have no illusions this could be accomplished in 4 or even 8 years, but it is a path you must walk until you reach the destination.
Finally, we really need to make the Israel / Palestine conflict a priority. The last president to seriously attempt that was Clinton and he was having some success but things started falling apart again. Kerry needs to get back to the table.
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
The clear answer here is Bush. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. One of the reasons Bin Laden cited for attacking was troops in Saudi Arabia. We now have troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as well and they will probably be there for quite some time. I am not suggesting that we capitulate to Bin Laden, but by increasing our troop presence we are doing nothing more than giving him ammo to recruit.
2. Bin Laden wanted to see an open conflict between Arabs and the US, and we have Iraq as a perfect example. The insurgency there is getting worse, not better and only an insane person would think that we could continue on this path and have things improve. Getting ourselves involved in things like this is how we lose the war on terror, not win.
3. By alienating our traditional allies, losing our credibility around the world and failing at diplomacy we are allowing Bin Laden to win by turning this into an US vs. Him thing when it should be the World vs. Him. It is impossible for us to fight this war alone, we need to put aside differences and work together. This will never happen under a Bush administration. We went from a record level of American support after 9/11 to a record level of American hate currently, there is a reason for that. I don't care what people think about France or Germany or Russia (and there is plenty of hatred, even amongst people on AD), but we absolutely cannot afford to have their cooperation and resources in this fight. If that involves making a few compromises and swallowing our pride, so be it.
4. I don't have confidence Bush will do what is required at home to secure our nation based on past performance. We now have a department of homeland security and planes are relatively secure, great. But what about everything else, funding first responders, securing ports, borders, rail, etc? So much more could be done in this area, and granted he could do more with another 4 years. But when you have someone that rejects the 9/11 commission's recommendations (if you read between the lines of his statements) that doesn't inspire me to have confidence in that person's intelligence what needs to be done.
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
My answer here is Kerry's plan, plain and simple. The reason for this is that Bush isn't really combatting terrorism in Iraq and in fact is making things worse, but I'll get to that below.
The fight against terrorism in my mind is going to require several things:
1. We need to continue to increase security at home and reform our policies and agencies like the FBI and CIA so that they can work together more effectively.
2. I see the fight against terrorism as much more of a battle that uses a combination of intelligence (domestic and international), special forces, diplomacy and international cooperation.
3. We also have to combat the idea behind terrorism. To do this really means that we need a much better relationship with the middle east in general and we have a vested interest in helping them to improve their economies and quality of life. People that are happy and wealthy don't run off to terrorist training camps.
4. We need to work much harder in encouraging Israel and Palestine to come to a peace agreement. By supporting Israel, we are bringing down hatred upon ourselves. We can't leave them hanging so the only other option is to work for peace.
So, how does Kerry's plan fit in?
It starts here with implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission in full, something Bush has not yet agreed to do. It also involves greatly increasing funding for domestic security efforts. Just think what all that money spent on Iraq could have bought for our domestic security. Bush doesn't have a stellar record here and he has actually cut funding for some groups and certainly hasn't gone far enough in other areas. This is admittedly a partisan site, but feel free to fact check the stuff yourself most of it is completely accurate.
In order to work on point 2 above, it requires the United States to mend relationships with its traditional allies so that we can put our differences aside and work together. It requires that we get our credibility back so that we can convince our people and others that our intelligence is good and doesn't have some secret agenda.
Point 3 requires that we look to Arab countries not as simply interests (read: sources of oil) but as potential partners that we can work with to build a better future. We have to improve relations to the point that we can establish good trade relationships, etc. I have no illusions this could be accomplished in 4 or even 8 years, but it is a path you must walk until you reach the destination.
Finally, we really need to make the Israel / Palestine conflict a priority. The last president to seriously attempt that was Clinton and he was having some success but things started falling apart again. Kerry needs to get back to the table.
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
The clear answer here is Bush. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. One of the reasons Bin Laden cited for attacking was troops in Saudi Arabia. We now have troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as well and they will probably be there for quite some time. I am not suggesting that we capitulate to Bin Laden, but by increasing our troop presence we are doing nothing more than giving him ammo to recruit.
2. Bin Laden wanted to see an open conflict between Arabs and the US, and we have Iraq as a perfect example. The insurgency there is getting worse, not better and only an insane person would think that we could continue on this path and have things improve. Getting ourselves involved in things like this is how we lose the war on terror, not win.
3. By alienating our traditional allies, losing our credibility around the world and failing at diplomacy we are allowing Bin Laden to win by turning this into an US vs. Him thing when it should be the World vs. Him. It is impossible for us to fight this war alone, we need to put aside differences and work together. This will never happen under a Bush administration. We went from a record level of American support after 9/11 to a record level of American hate currently, there is a reason for that. I don't care what people think about France or Germany or Russia (and there is plenty of hatred, even amongst people on AD), but we absolutely cannot afford to have their cooperation and resources in this fight. If that involves making a few compromises and swallowing our pride, so be it.
4. I don't have confidence Bush will do what is required at home to secure our nation based on past performance. We now have a department of homeland security and planes are relatively secure, great. But what about everything else, funding first responders, securing ports, borders, rail, etc? So much more could be done in this area, and granted he could do more with another 4 years. But when you have someone that rejects the 9/11 commission's recommendations (if you read between the lines of his statements) that doesn't inspire me to have confidence in that person's intelligence what needs to be done.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Oct 8 2004, 12:30 PM)
It starts here with implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission in full, something Bush has not yet agreed to do. It also involves greatly increasing funding for domestic security efforts. Just think what all that money spent on Iraq could have bought for our domestic security. Bush doesn't have a stellar record here and he has actually cut funding for some groups and certainly hasn't gone far enough in other areas. This is admittedly a partisan site, but feel free to fact check the stuff yourself most of it is completely accurate.
In order to work on point 2 above, it requires the United States to mend relationships with its traditional allies so that we can put our differences aside and work together. It requires that we get our credibility back so that we can convince our people and others that our intelligence is good and doesn't have some secret agenda.
In order to work on point 2 above, it requires the United States to mend relationships with its traditional allies so that we can put our differences aside and work together. It requires that we get our credibility back so that we can convince our people and others that our intelligence is good and doesn't have some secret agenda.
The idea of pre-emptive action is to prevent threats BEFORE they develop. Saddam was a threat...even Kerry admits it. The recent report about the "no WMD's in Iraq" doesnt say only that. It says that Saddam was looking to acquire WMDs and would do so once the world turned its back once again to the problem. We went into Iraq so that we wouldnt have to 10 years down the road. Dont kid yourself into thinking that an Iraq War wasnt inevitable.
Furthermore...again i ask...what allies? Who is it that would suddenly make the situation in Iraq any better? We have our allies in there. UK, Poland, Australia..exc... I have no idea who else you would want.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Point 3 requires that we look to Arab countries not as simply interests (read: sources of oil) but as potential partners that we can work with to build a better future. We have to improve relations to the point that we can establish good trade relationships, etc. I have no illusions this could be accomplished in 4 or even 8 years, but it is a path you must walk until you reach the destination.
Easier said than done. We have strong relationships with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and soon Afghanistan and Iraq. With fundamentalist regimes in Iran and Syria it is unlikely that we can establish anything with them.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Finally, we really need to make the Israel / Palestine conflict a priority. The last president to seriously attempt that was Clinton and he was having some success but things started falling apart again. Kerry needs to get back to the table.
I dont have to remind you that the conflict has been going on for 1000s of years. Simple peace talks wont quell the hatred. We are dealing with terrorists here...not a standing army or government. Terrorists who want all the Jews dead. The only thing you can do is kill all the terrorists.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
The clear answer here is Bush. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. One of the reasons Bin Laden cited for attacking was troops in Saudi Arabia. We now have troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as well and they will probably be there for quite some time. I am not suggesting that we capitulate to Bin Laden, but by increasing our troop presence we are doing nothing more than giving him ammo to recruit.
The clear answer here is Bush. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. One of the reasons Bin Laden cited for attacking was troops in Saudi Arabia. We now have troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as well and they will probably be there for quite some time. I am not suggesting that we capitulate to Bin Laden, but by increasing our troop presence we are doing nothing more than giving him ammo to recruit.
What again was our foreign policy that inflamed hatred before 9/11? Troops in Saudi Arabia? Thats it? I refuse to believe that because we have decided to bring the fight to Al Queda's doorstep that we are somehow in more danger. Hundreds of thousands of Al Queda operatives are dead...and i feel safer because of it. Terrorists can no longer plan attacks in the safety and sanctity of rogue states. They are on the run.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
2. Bin Laden wanted to see an open conflict between Arabs and the US, and we have Iraq as a perfect example. The insurgency there is getting worse, not better and only an insane person would think that we could continue on this path and have things improve. Getting ourselves involved in things like this is how we lose the war on terror, not win.
The Al Queda, Baathist remnants and Iran-backed operatives are indeed going into Iraq. But you know what? Instead of looking for them in the hills and in the caves...we know exactly where they are and all of them will be eventually killed.
You see the insurgents know what to do. They arent fighting the Coalition. Look at the attacks. The deaths in July were larger than June...the deaths in August were bigger than July. Its simple to see what they are doing because it has been done before. The Confederates did it in the Civil War and the NVA did it during Vietnam. They know that if the conflict drags on for a long time...public opinion in the United States will force the politicians to withdraw. And a lot of people are falling for it. During the Civil War, Lincoln was the only hope for the Union. All the Rebels had to do was not lose a major battle and eventually the North would vote Lincoln out of office and the new president would end the war. In Vietnam, the proof has been shown that the NVA and Vietcong would have surrendered if they did not believe that American public opinion could be so easily swayed.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
3. By alienating our traditional allies, losing our credibility around the world and failing at diplomacy we are allowing Bin Laden to win by turning this into an US vs. Him thing when it should be the World vs. Him. It is impossible for us to fight this war alone, we need to put aside differences and work together. This will never happen under a Bush administration. We went from a record level of American support after 9/11 to a record level of American hate currently, there is a reason for that. I don't care what people think about France or Germany or Russia (and there is plenty of hatred, even amongst people on AD), but we absolutely cannot afford to have their cooperation and resources in this fight. If that involves making a few compromises and swallowing our pride, so be it.
I am not even going to get into it with France. They conspired with Saddam Hussein against us and suddenly you want them to help you. Its amazing that people believe that Chirac was just a conscientious objector towards the war. The evidence is overwhelming that his corrupt government was making billions off of Saddam and didnt wanna spoil the deal. And they call it Bush's "War for Oil"...
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
4. I don't have confidence Bush will do what is required at home to secure our nation based on past performance. We now have a department of homeland security and planes are relatively secure, great. But what about everything else, funding first responders, securing ports, borders, rail, etc? So much more could be done in this area, and granted he could do more with another 4 years. But when you have someone that rejects the 9/11 commission's recommendations (if you read between the lines of his statements) that doesn't inspire me to have confidence in that person's intelligence what needs to be done.
Bush questioned the 9/11 Commission's report just like any rational person would. The day after the report came out, Kerry said that he would unquestionably concede to every part of the report. That isnt good judgment. If the recommendations are sound...then do it. But if there are stipulations that are not convenient or proper than Bush shouldnt just blindly accept them.
I would have to say the global approach is far better then pre-emptive strikes. There is a lot of words being used to describe the u.s intelligence capabilities right now, most of them are about not being good enough or needing to be better, then of course you can contrast this to what intelligence was saying and doing in the past and of course pre 9-11. Why I bring up intelligence is that it would of course play the crucial role to me in being affective against terror cells, the ones that commit acts and so on, and that they are for whats to be believed spread out all over, not just in, lets say iraq. Another point is why intelligence services now receive the brunt of iraq in so many ways, and overall in terms of u.s relations to the u.n in general, to clearing allegations of politicians in responsibility. Its very convoluted, but to think of iraq again and the nature of how terrorists fight, i really dont see how the global approach is not the best one, in a spy vs. spy type of fashion, or mainly trying to get at the cells, and acting bigger then such when more supported with factual evidence on why you want to, that cannot be disputed at any level. only intelligence capabilities will be able to produce this.
Not acting globally to me, and instead just taking on nations in which you put the populous at the center stage will just bring out failure in the long term of things, and that "vision" truly lacks fitness to combat the current situation and provide security. This is one reason i want kerry, i do think that he will be able to lets say, advance international relations in not just this, but many things overall. The u.s went schizoid after 9-11, cant say i could blame it, but at some point we have to delegate to what will the future be for combating terrorism and so much more, not just dwell in the past everyday, and furthermore be channeled into action as a populous by the trauma 9-11 inflicted. To go into just the conservative vs. liberal aspect of it all, it would to me be the individual in that respect, kerry is got the liberal label from some angle, but that appeals to me as smear, nothing more. i think he is far more moderate then liberal, and of course he is a democrat, but many democrats have been president during wars, so he would not be the first. As running for president, i dont think he would attempt to not provide security, i just feel the situation allows for bush to seem more caring simply because he bombs people, and i feel that is a false illusion of safety, and that the whole idea of the war on terrorism needs to be something more in depth then starting wars from information sources you say are lame and or not proper in the first place. That to me again, does not seem at this point to provide anything positive on the combating of terror, and now really requires the u.s to stay and protect people from civil war and something far worse to come about. So it would be the individual to me, not the ideological platform they reside in. I would think the conservative overall would feel current iraq to be just fine, and the liberal for the most part would object, that is as far as i could go on that one, being the conservative ethos is far more refined then what liberal is at this point in time, saving economic standpoints.
Not acting globally to me, and instead just taking on nations in which you put the populous at the center stage will just bring out failure in the long term of things, and that "vision" truly lacks fitness to combat the current situation and provide security. This is one reason i want kerry, i do think that he will be able to lets say, advance international relations in not just this, but many things overall. The u.s went schizoid after 9-11, cant say i could blame it, but at some point we have to delegate to what will the future be for combating terrorism and so much more, not just dwell in the past everyday, and furthermore be channeled into action as a populous by the trauma 9-11 inflicted. To go into just the conservative vs. liberal aspect of it all, it would to me be the individual in that respect, kerry is got the liberal label from some angle, but that appeals to me as smear, nothing more. i think he is far more moderate then liberal, and of course he is a democrat, but many democrats have been president during wars, so he would not be the first. As running for president, i dont think he would attempt to not provide security, i just feel the situation allows for bush to seem more caring simply because he bombs people, and i feel that is a false illusion of safety, and that the whole idea of the war on terrorism needs to be something more in depth then starting wars from information sources you say are lame and or not proper in the first place. That to me again, does not seem at this point to provide anything positive on the combating of terror, and now really requires the u.s to stay and protect people from civil war and something far worse to come about. So it would be the individual to me, not the ideological platform they reside in. I would think the conservative overall would feel current iraq to be just fine, and the liberal for the most part would object, that is as far as i could go on that one, being the conservative ethos is far more refined then what liberal is at this point in time, saving economic standpoints.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Oct 8 2004, 01:22 PM)
The idea of pre-emptive action is to prevent threats BEFORE they develop. Saddam was a threat...even Kerry admits it. The recent report about the "no WMD's in Iraq" doesnt say only that. It says that Saddam was looking to acquire WMDs and would do so once the world turned its back once again to the problem. We went into Iraq so that we wouldnt have to 10 years down the road. Dont kid yourself into thinking that an Iraq War wasnt inevitable.
I understand what pre-emption is perfectly well leder and seeing as how the subject of the debate is basically pre-emption vs. a global approach I am suggesting that pre-emption is a flawed and incorrect foreign policy.
Sure Iraq was a "threat" a lot of places are "threats", but does that mean we should invade every one of them? No it doesn't. You might do better here if you try and explain why pre-emption was the correct policy instead of trying to define pre-emption for me.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
Easier said than done. We have strong relationships with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and soon Afghanistan and Iraq. With fundamentalist regimes in Iran and Syria it is unlikely that we can establish anything with them.
Exactly the kind of thinking that will ensure this never happens leder, and if you really think we have strong relationships with the countries you mentioned you are kidding yourself. Peace and Understanding are not easy things to come by and it requires an open mind, patience and the willingness to think outside the box to be successful. Bush holds none of those characteristics, which is why the middle east will never be stable for a Bush administration.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
I dont have to remind you that the conflict has been going on for 1000s of years. Simple peace talks wont quell the hatred. We are dealing with terrorists here...not a standing army or government. Terrorists who want all the Jews dead. The only thing you can do is kill all the terrorists.
So your logic is, because it is hard - don't attempt it? That is certainly a winning attitude
Again it is a process you follow to try and make progress. There are legitimate grievances on both sides of the table and progress has been difficult largely because of people taking a hardline on both sides. It is also incorrect to write off all Palestinians as terrorists leder, there is a group (which is well supported) that is choosing to exercise its voice in this manner, even though it appears to everyone else to be unproductive. And once again, as you have illustrated this is why a Bush administration will never be successful here. A journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step. Kerry has fully admitted that most of the things he wants to do might not be successful during his administration, but it is the direction change and the journey that is important.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
What again was our foreign policy that inflamed hatred before 9/11? Troops in Saudi Arabia? Thats it? I refuse to believe that because we have decided to bring the fight to Al Queda's doorstep that we are somehow in more danger. Hundreds of thousands of Al Queda operatives are dead...and i feel safer because of it. Terrorists can no longer plan attacks in the safety and sanctity of rogue states. They are on the run.
What we have here is a failure to understand the motivation that allows Al Qaeda to recruit. I said that one of the reasons OBL cited was troops in Saudi Arabia. Clearly he used that to successfully recruit young arab men. So by bringing more troops into Iraq and invading a country based on what the entire world (arabs included) knows to be a lie, we are hurting Bin Laden? Absolutely ridiculous. What we have done is given him an even more powerful recruiting tool for his efforts. Every civilian we kill or wrong in Iraq potentially has a family and friends that might consider turing to Bin laden for revenge. It is simple human psychology and common sense.
Hundreds of thousands?
I think you are exagerrating a bit. Furthermore, the terrorists clearly aren't on the run. Perhaps you haven't noticed all of the bombings in Iraq and elsewhere, Spain's 9/11, all the beheadings and the fact that OBL is still at large. I hardly think it is time to break out the champagne. QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
You see the insurgents know what to do. They arent fighting the Coalition. Look at the attacks. The deaths in July were larger than June...the deaths in August were bigger than July
Um, they aren't fighting the coalition? Then why is the death toll going up every month? Perhaps it is because they have now recruited people and are in the next stage of insurgency? What did you expect them to do, march out on the field in bright colors and fire in a line like British soldiers in the Revolutionary War? Of course they are going to use guerilla tactics, that is how a small force beats a large army as proved in all of the examples you cited. QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
Bush questioned the 9/11 Commission's report just like any rational person would. The day after the report came out, Kerry said that he would unquestionably concede to every part of the report. That isnt good judgment. If the recommendations are sound...then do it. But if there are stipulations that are not convenient or proper than Bush shouldnt just blindly accept them.
I have read the thing in full Leder, have you? The recommendations in there are sound. Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that Kerry was able to view drafts of the report or get an advanced copy seeing as he is a senator and all.
The fact here is that Bush was opposed to the commission, fought them as much as he could only giving in when he absolutely had to and now that they have delivered their report he has absolutely no intention of listening to them unless his advisors tell him to. He is just glad it is over and they didn't call his administration to the carpet for 9/11.
What isn't good judgement is having a completely closed mind to everything.
Now that I have rebutted all of your answers, I'd like to see what your answers to the questions for debate are. How has Bush fought the perfect war on terror and how is Kerry going to be a miserable failure? Inquiring minds want to know.
QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 8 2004, 04:15 AM)
Bush's Pre emptive Doctrine or the Global approach of Kerry
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
Whose will do more to fight Terrorism and Why?
Define terrorism in such a way that it doesn't implicate US foreign policy, and I'll be able to talk about who can fight it better. Meanwhile, the answer is Nader.
Who will create and encourage more terrorist groups and those sympathetic to them, and why?
If we define, for the purpose of this answer, terrorism as attacks on US civilians at home and abroad, I'll go with Kerry (but Nader would be better). Of the Twoparty candidates, Kerry seems slightly less likely to wreak the mayhem required to turn a human being into a human bomb. However, I'm worried over the failure to speak at all about human rights violations during any of the debates, and I'm worried that Kerry still hasn't come out strongly on Abu Ghraib, cluster bombing civilian areas, DU rounds, and all the other lovely stuff that makes some people mad and desperate enough to load up with explosives and head for the nearest American watering hole.
Well, maybe he'll show strong in the third debate on that issue. Maybe a question on the issue of human rights will actually get into a debate. One can hope. Doubtful, though, since it's supposed to focus on domestic issues.
I think the only way to stop these attacks is to change the ideals of the subcultures which are carrying out the attacks. Or more bluntly, to assimilate them. Bush uses cold war methods of coercion, intimidation, and expansion. I'm not sure we can yet judge the results of this. We haven't been attacked on American soil since the killing began. Is this an indication of the success of his methods? Time will tell.
The methodology of diplomacy sits better with me than turning the United States into the new roman empire but I do not think Kerry possesses the leadership or the backbone to initiate global peace.
Maybe I'll just write Colin Powell on my ballot.
QUOTE
and I'm worried that Kerry still hasn't come out strongly on Abu Ghraib, cluster bombing civilian areas, DU rounds, and all the other lovely stuff that makes some people mad and desperate enough to load up with explosives and head for the nearest American watering hole.
This is not their motivation for terror. It may anger you but it is not what makes them terrorists. They actually were set in their thinking before Abu Ghraib. It is their version of Islam that motivates them. If you think negotiation and lots of it will quell terror you clearly don't understand it's roots. Here is an excercise that might enlighten:
Next time a door to door religion peddler calls invite them in and reason with them and bring them around to your view of the world and God. That is how much luck you will have in negociating away Islamo-terror.
NO, I am afraid John Kerry would not make the world a better place. Not in the long run. For him the first Gulf War coalition was not enough. I would like the math. Just how many approving Food-for-oil-ites would be enough to give us the right to wipe out terror?
QUOTE(tyork @ Oct 9 2004, 09:39 AM)
QUOTE
and I'm worried that Kerry still hasn't come out strongly on Abu Ghraib, cluster bombing civilian areas, DU rounds, and all the other lovely stuff that makes some people mad and desperate enough to load up with explosives and head for the nearest American watering hole.
This is not their motivation for terror. It may anger you but it is not what makes them terrorists. They actually were set in their thinking before Abu Ghraib. It is their version of Islam that motivates them. If you think negotiation and lots of it will quell terror you clearly don't understand it's roots. Here is an excercise that might enlighten:
Next time a door to door religion peddler calls invite them in and reason with them and bring them around to your view of the world and God. That is how much luck you will have in negociating away Islamo-terror.
NO, I am afraid John Kerry would not make the world a better place. Not in the long run. For him the first Gulf War coalition was not enough. I would like the math. Just how many approving Food-for-oil-ites would be enough to give us the right to wipe out terror?
I only know what I know on this one from what I feel. And that is that there is nothing I can think of in this world that could make me strap bombs to myself and head for a civilian area. But if there was anything that could make the unthinkable thinkable, it would be the loss of family members to bombardment, or anyone I loved or myself enduring torture (who wouldn't go crazy if they were tortured and the ones who did it weren't severely punished?).
To me, the plotters, the ones who send out the suidice bombers, aren't the victims. But often those who do these things are victims. They've gone mad with grief and anger over something, and America would be very wise to reduce the number of people driven mad by our policies.
Well the debate topic is about the impact of liberal vs. conservative modes of thought on the ending of terrorism to america or the world. Kerry is a democrat, i know that much i hope, but he is not super liberal, he does hold onto legacy democratic issues, and i guess that can be combined into saying he is a liberal, but to me its just those old platform issues. To go on about will liberal thought defeat terror. Liberal to me relates more to freethinking on anything that does not deal directly with economic issues, so i cant really speak on it, being the liberal culture is somewhat diverse in relation to the conservative group, both of these groups respectively in america of course. Conservatism seems to wrap itself in the flag and then the bible and say things like this is the american way or something, and talk alway of pumping some massive military, and then of course sell that as being american and so on, is it? I dont really know, to qualify my opinion on the issue, various amendments in the constitution seem to be liberal, i am sorry but they do, just from the separation of church and state to granting the common person liberty, those are not defined perfectly one could say...
To end on just that part, it seems that the use of the two cant really win, being they are really domestic in base, and i dont know how they will reflect in terms of world relations. I know this current administration compared to other conservative or republican administrations is not dealing very well with international relations, and i feel that will cripple us and enable terrorist cell movement and attacks.
I furthermore feel that the conservative mind will never seek to understand why or even care to understand why certain muslims feel motivated to do such, and instead think that tanks may solve all the problems, which to me will just make things worse. Though on that aspect, the liberal may get to open with trying to do such, and then be taken advantage of by people whom care not for any resolution to peace and simply want to destroy. Its a fine line and the lack of cooperation between larger political groups in american like lack of international methods of dealing with terror i think will only aim to serve terrorists. Being i do follow what would be called liberal thought and so on, i have over time come to find how complex things are due to our ignorance of them, and this ignorance time and time again never comes out to be bliss, and i dont think in this situation the ignorance will help us either, so with that being said, i fully agree the current method of the WOT is not going to work. I think kerry may be able to get the international base of combating terror going more then bush, and that kerry may be more realistic with this war then bush. Do i think kerry is somehow going to make the conflict in the mideast dissolve, not really, but i do feel he is up to the job more then the current.
To end on just that part, it seems that the use of the two cant really win, being they are really domestic in base, and i dont know how they will reflect in terms of world relations. I know this current administration compared to other conservative or republican administrations is not dealing very well with international relations, and i feel that will cripple us and enable terrorist cell movement and attacks.
I furthermore feel that the conservative mind will never seek to understand why or even care to understand why certain muslims feel motivated to do such, and instead think that tanks may solve all the problems, which to me will just make things worse. Though on that aspect, the liberal may get to open with trying to do such, and then be taken advantage of by people whom care not for any resolution to peace and simply want to destroy. Its a fine line and the lack of cooperation between larger political groups in american like lack of international methods of dealing with terror i think will only aim to serve terrorists. Being i do follow what would be called liberal thought and so on, i have over time come to find how complex things are due to our ignorance of them, and this ignorance time and time again never comes out to be bliss, and i dont think in this situation the ignorance will help us either, so with that being said, i fully agree the current method of the WOT is not going to work. I think kerry may be able to get the international base of combating terror going more then bush, and that kerry may be more realistic with this war then bush. Do i think kerry is somehow going to make the conflict in the mideast dissolve, not really, but i do feel he is up to the job more then the current.
ralou:
Resorting to feeling as opposed to thinking will only make this problem of terrorism worse IMO. Cool heads, thorough training, and a steady aim are what is required. These people are not going to be won over by love. They have to be defeated. That may sound harsh but defeating terrorism is not the job for a liberal-minded leader. Liberalism works best with those who already agree with you and respond to reason.
It is not grief and anger that motivates the phenom of suicide bombing and other terror it is the blind, unthinking perversion of the Muslim faith and the threats of bodily harm and shame that zealous Islamists wield over their victims/followers.
Only conservatives have the stomach to make the world safe for pacificists and protestors.
QUOTE
I only know what I know on this one from what I feel. And that is that there is nothing I can think of in this world that could make me strap bombs to myself and head for a civilian area. But if there was anything that could make the unthinkable thinkable, it would be the loss of family members to bombardment, or anyone I loved or myself enduring torture (who wouldn't go crazy if they were tortured and the ones who did it weren't severely punished?).
To me, the plotters, the ones who send out the suidice bombers, aren't the victims. But often those who do these things are victims. They've gone mad with grief and anger over something, and America would be very wise to reduce the number of people driven mad by our policies.
To me, the plotters, the ones who send out the suidice bombers, aren't the victims. But often those who do these things are victims. They've gone mad with grief and anger over something, and America would be very wise to reduce the number of people driven mad by our policies.
Resorting to feeling as opposed to thinking will only make this problem of terrorism worse IMO. Cool heads, thorough training, and a steady aim are what is required. These people are not going to be won over by love. They have to be defeated. That may sound harsh but defeating terrorism is not the job for a liberal-minded leader. Liberalism works best with those who already agree with you and respond to reason.
It is not grief and anger that motivates the phenom of suicide bombing and other terror it is the blind, unthinking perversion of the Muslim faith and the threats of bodily harm and shame that zealous Islamists wield over their victims/followers.
Only conservatives have the stomach to make the world safe for pacificists and protestors.
QUOTE(tyork @ Oct 12 2004, 05:12 PM)
It is not grief and anger that motivates the phenom of suicide bombing and other terror it is the blind, unthinking perversion of the Muslim faith and the threats of bodily harm and shame that zealous Islamists wield over their victims/followers.
Only conservatives have the stomach to make the world safe for pacificists and protestors.
Only conservatives have the stomach to make the world safe for pacificists and protestors.
Your first statement is absolutely 100% incorrect, and frankly I think that if a Muslim actually read this they would find your response utterly insulting. Do you think these people just woke up one day and decided they were going to follow a radical discipline of Islam? No, they didn't.
There are numerous social, economic and political factors at work that cause young men and women to turn to terrorism and radical disciplines of Islam. It is these factors which must be addressed or there will always be a pool of potential terrorists for Al Qaeda and other groups to recruit.
In regards to your second statement, do you have any evidence or proof of that, or are we just making unprovable blanket assertions today?
QUOTE(tyork @ Oct 13 2004, 01:12 AM)
Resorting to feeling as opposed to thinking will only make this problem of terrorism worse IMO. Cool heads, thorough training, and a steady aim are what is required. These people are not going to be won over by love. They have to be defeated. That may sound harsh but defeating terrorism is not the job for a liberal-minded leader. Liberalism works best with those who already agree with you and respond to reason.
Nope. Can't agree with this.
Firstly, nobody is suggesting that anyone should be "won over by love". Kerry is not proposing to go to Iraq wearing a grass skirt and flowers in his hair dispensing hugs. (For satirical purposes this is a shame, as it's a lovely image!)
Secondly, shooting any terrorist on sight pre-emptively is not what I would describe as "thinking" with "cool heads", no matter how steady your aim.
You can no more "defeat" terrorism than you can defeat crime or politics or religion or sarcasm any of the other ways in which human beings express themselves, however destructive. That is, you can defeat it, but such a defeat involves killing everyone who might become a terrorist - i.e. everyone.
Everybody responds to reason - terrorists would stop their terror (and do - Northen Ireland is the classic example) if they thought they had more chance of making their case heard by using diplomatic or political routes. However wrong-headed, people become terrorists because they feel it is the only way to get what they want. Their options may well be artificially hidden or narrowed through ignorance or oppression, by a government and/or a religious group. Their agression may well be misdirected (most Arab terrorists should be bombing their governments, if anyone, not the West). The rationale that takes their desperation and turns it into terrorism may well be directed by bad men with a deeper agenda.
But, at some level, every single terrorist that ever picked up an AK-47 has made what seemed to them a rational choice to become what they are, and therefore every single terrorist can be persuaded, through reason, to put down their guns.
Now, those persuasive reasons might well include the high probability of death should they continue, but we already know that the fear of death alone is no barrier to human activity, especially where Abrahamic religions are involved.
By all means make terrorism an unattractive option, but this alone will not work unless there are other visible options that hold some promise.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.