A Radical Response to Terrorism

[iplaw]

By that logic, all of the "terrorist" groups", and there have been a lot of them, that have existed in the US at various times, would be justification for outside intervention.

Name another terrorist group inside the US who committed mass murder of our citizens within our borders that we failed to deal with; that's the difference oh great one.  It just happens to be that Al-Qaeda is tied, even if tacitly, to most if not all of the groups I listed.

Secondly, apparently you are under the mistaken impression that we only negotiate with those countries that agree with us.

Apparently you think these countries just "disagree" with us, that's the main flaw in your logic.  Consensus, truce or peace is not their goal, our elimination is.  



Again.  Please Mr. Superior Intellectual History Buff, please enlighten me as to how YOU would craft our foreign policy and who YOU would negotiate with.  Back up your assertions with actual ideas or shut your yapper.  I have a feeling that you are like every other liberal politician or historian who misunderstands the current geopolitical climate and is hopelessly short-sighted and wants to deal with the world according your set of rules which 90% of the world doesn't acknowledge or hold themselves to.  Our greatest enemies are not interested in discussion, but that won't stop you from talking.  Lemme guess, you're gonna suggest that the UN should deal with it...

[Asmodean Prime]

Nah, no need.  I think I'll just sit back and chuckle.  I have better things to do than to teach you remedial history.  You have a self-imposed view of the world that is myopic at best, and completely blind at worst...impossible to cure without major surgery, I'm afraid.  Let's just hope there are not too many like-minded creative historians and diplomats such as yourself, or this world is destined to be blown to smithereens. ta ta

[iplaw]

Yeah, you're right.  You've proven yourself to be a real intellectual titan.  Best to run away than to debate.  You're a drive-by pseudo-intellectual who makes statements and doesn't care to debate others when challenged on those statements.

If my ideas are such easy pickins you should have no problem refuting my error and laying out a coherent plan based upon your superior understanding of the material.  Nice copout; next time don't start a thread without backing up your assertions or fully expect to get summarily bounced.

This thread should be deleted for your lack of ability to debate, but if you manage to find your spine I'm ready to address any topic you throw out.

[Asmodean Prime]

I agree, but we simply cannot stand by and watch attrocities like Darfur and Somalia happen as the world has and be content to just protect ourselves; that seems evil.  It pisses me off to no end to see that no one is addressing that issue.  Iraq, I am split on.  I think the war was justified but poorly managed, but that doesn't absolve our duties elsewhere.  Where would we be if we ignored Hitler and proceeded down a merely nationalist path?  Hitler would have built the bomb and conquered Europe; not a pretty thought.  Nuclear proliferation is another topic that I agree with Chris exists, but don't agree with his solution.  Most of the countries seeking to possess these weapons will only be stopped by US intervention.  France, Germany, China and Russia simply don't seem to care if N.K. or Iran get the bomb!  We simply cannot allow certain countries to obtain those weapons.

I agree with you totally on that, iplaw

Chris wrote: "I yearn for a world without borders, for a world without war. This will not happen in my lifetime, but it can happen...with will, reason, and common sense."

Most reasonable people yearn for that, but I don't think it can happen, as there will always be rogue elements seeking their own selfish agenda as long as man rules on the earth.  I agree with most people on this forum regarding this, that religion will always play a largely negative role in continuing this strife between man.

[Asmodean Prime]

Iplaw, if I had not run into your type so often when I was younger, perhaps I would debate...but obviously it would be pointless.  You chose to ignore all of the examples in the orginal essay, choosing instead to pull isolated quotes.  You avoided the two major themes altogether; 1.  Attempting to control world events through force has proven to be a misguided illusion.  Historical examples abound; one given in detail.  2.  We have lost sight of diplomacy.  Reagan's greatest strength was a willingess to talk with the enemy, no matter how despicable.  If we do not "create" allies, then we will be overrun by non-state terrorists.  I have read your other posts.  If I thought it possible to educate you, I would attempt to do so.  It is not.  I shall not.  I am done.

[iplaw]

Nice try, but your gutless appeals to your perceived flawless intelligence and supposition that I should bow to you because of your age are pathetic.  Debate or go home.

Your "essay" if you can call it that was nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, hoping people don't have any clue as to the historical context of the conflicts you listed.  When looked at objectively most of those wars actually disprove your assertion.

I will READDRESS your "points":

1.  Attempting to control world events through force has proven to be a misguided illusion. Historical examples abound; one given in detail.

Stating that examples abound doesn't score you any points.  You can make claims all day long and stand on your claim as objective evidence and it still doesn't make it true no matter how loud you yell.  In fact I think that's called circular logic.

WWII is a perfect example of when force MUST have been used to control world events; there were no other options.  We can go down the list and provide ample justification for the use of force in light of most, if not all of the situations involved in precipitating each conflict.  I am up for that debate if you are slim, but something tells me you won't be.

2.  We have lost sight of diplomacy.

Countries tend to lose sight of diplomacy as a viable alternative when your enemy doesn't have that word in their vocabulary nor plans on exercising it as an option even if you gave them the definition.

Your ideas are wonderful theory, but we need solutions, not theories.  I wish we could sit at a table over tea and negotiate.  Then the leaders of the Islamic world and America could go and hunt butterflies and pet puppy dogs together and we can all live together in a bubble gum house on lipop lane.  

You keep saying we should negotiate, but you still haven't told me who we should be negotiating with.

This is why the American people don't elect hippies into office.  Never have, never will...

[Asmodean Prime]

I apologize.  Obviously you require remedial reading lessons.  History will have to wait, I'm afraid.

[iplaw]

Cute.  Run away gramps.  Do us all a favor and stop posting.  No surprise you have nothing substantive to say.

[Asmodean Prime]

Who is "us", you pompous pipsqueak?

[Asmodean Prime]

Chris and iplaw:

Please desist right now, or I will be forced to come over there and bang your heads together

Your not too big to go across my knee, you know!

Seriously, though, this is a forum for debate. Please don't anybody let your side down (whatever side that is) by resorting to insults and impatience.  We will never meet in real life.  Just try and keep it civil, ok?

Now go across and shake hands, ok?

[iplaw]

Who is "us", you pompous pipsqueak?

Anyone else who has the misfortune of reading your hippie drivel.

HAHA!! Pompus, surely you jest...

I think I'll just sit back and chuckle. I have better things to do than to teach you remedial history.

Obviously you require remedial reading lessons.

...if I had not run into your type so often when I was younger, perhaps I would debate...but obviously it would be pointless

You do however have a good grasp on irony though and the pot/kettle paradigm.

Time to head back to the home for jello pudding and craft time.

[MikeyV]

I want in on this. I responded to Chris's Taliban mini-rant thread on July 8th, and never got a response. So here's the post as written:

Mikey V, you may want to read the post titled "A Radical Response to Terrorism".

OK, I did. I agree it was a nice essay, with a good military campaign history of the US.

But, you didn't provide any suggestions. For instance, here are the last two paragraphs:

This third reason is the critical argument for a new approach to foreign policy…we need to approach the rapidly approaching future as a world community, gathering as many sane people as possible to ward off the looming threat.

What do you mean "gather", and how do you propose we do this?

We need to stop trying to impose our will on our friends and enemies, and become a real example of what a republic can be.

I can agree with this to some extent. I don't however, see anything wrong with trying to improve US interests around the world, as long as we're not giving other countries the shaft.

We need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past.

Such as? I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with this statement, because you haven't really said anything.

We need to be a leader in the world community and not a rogue state.

I'm interested in hearing when it is you think we went rogue. Could you pinpoint the year?

We need a compact, reduced military to be used for defensive purposes only.

In an ideal world, I'd agree with this sentiment. If we could count on every other country to do so, it would be an awesome thing. But, it's just not the way the world works. How do you suggest we handle future Pol Pots, Hitlers and Stalins? Should we send them a letter from the UN telling them how very very angry we are with them (thanks Team America)?

We need to set a stage for a new, cooperative world effort to minimize the dangers of future technological advances.

Advances such as what? Are you a Luddite? Or are you talking about military application of technology?

Let’s stop creating enemies, and start cultivating friends in the world.

I can agree with that. We have dirty hands in many places on this earth. One of the simplest solutions would be to stop supporting corrupt regimes, such as Saudi Arabia. Stop pissing away money into crooked programs such as oil for food. See, real solutions.

I share your dream of a peaceful world. One in which crime and poverty are virtually non-existant the world over. One in which my daughters feel safe and don't need to fear a vacation in the middle east, or a midnight walk in the park. But, you haven't really offered anything, just ranted. Let's hear some suggested solutions.

[iplaw]

MikeyV,

Such as? I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with this statement, because you haven't really said anything.

What do you mean "gather", and how do you propose we do this?

But, you haven't really offered anything, just ranted. Let's hear some suggested solutions.

Bada Bing!  Enjoy the condescending tongue lashing you are about to receive from Chris.  He won't respond to anything you say other than "you don't know history, and I don't have time to teach you."

We live in a real world with actual adversaries and issues which deserve deliberately calculated solutions, not just good vibes and happy thoughts.

[Asmodean Prime]

Mikey V, I started to respond a month ago, but decided there would be no point in doing so.  I find this method of pulling selected passages to be useless, when the answers to the questions are already there.  When I realized that I would just be repeating myself, but in a disjointed and non-comprehensive manner, I decided against it.  I have reviewed my original essay.  I am satisfied that it addresses all of your "questions", if you would choose to see them.  I believe that you and Iplaw are more interested in creating heat than shedding light, so I welcome you two to engage in mutual back-slapping.  I have moved on to other matters.

[iplaw]

Thank you professor.  The world awaits your next intellectual triumph, and I can't wait to see what topic you mangle next.