Author Topic: A Radical Response to Terrorism  (Read 839 times)

Asmodean Prime

  • Tech Admin
  • Administrator
  • Has Received Bacon
  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Father Of All Asmos
A Radical Response to Terrorism
« on: June 22, 2006, 10:18:31 AM »
It’s time to challenge America’s approach to foreign policy. It’s time to heed Eisenhower’s warning and dismantle the military-industrial complex.

The problem of having a huge military budget is the temptation to use the military far too often. Let’s take a look at US military involvement in the 20th century:

• Philippine-American War (1899–1913)
• Boxer Rebellion (1900)
• Panamanian Revolution (1903)
• Second U.S. occupation of Cuba (1906–1909)
• Tampico Affair & Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico (1914)
• Invasion of Haiti (1915-1934)
• Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924)
• Pancho Villa Expedition (1916–1917)
• World War I (1917–1918)
• Polar Bear Expedition (Russian Civil War) (1918–1919)
• Spanish Civil War (1936–1938)
• World War II (1941–1945)
• Korean War (1950–1953)
• Jayuya Uprising - Puerto Rico (1950)
• Vietnam War (1964–1975}
• Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965)
• Mayagüez Incident (1975)
• Operation Eagle Claw (1980)
• Gulf of Sidra Incidents (1981, 1989)
• Lebanon Peacekeeping (1982–1984)
• Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) (1983)
• Libyan Patrol Boats (Jan-Mar 1986)
• Operation El Dorado Canyon (15 April 1986)
• Operation Earnest Will (1987–1988)
• Operation Prime Chance (1987–1988)
• Operation Praying Mantis (1988)
• Operation Golden Pheasant (1988)
• USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 (1988)
• Operation Just Cause (Panama) (1989)
• Persian Gulf War (1990–1991)
• Somali Civil War (1992-1995)
• Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti) (1994)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (as member of IFOR and SFOR peacekeeping forces, 1995—)
• Operation Infinite Reach (strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, 1998)
• Operation Allied Force (Kosovo War, NATO operations, 1999)
• Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) (2001—)
• Operation Iraqi Freedom (Second Persian Gulf War) (2003—)
• Liberian peacekeeping (Liberia) (2003)
• Haiti Rebellion (2004)

Covert operations, coups, military advisors etc:
• Greek Civil War (1946-1949)
• Operation Ajax (Iran, 1951–1953)
• Operation PBSUCCESS (Guatemala, 1954)
• Bay of Pigs Invasion (Cuba, 1961)
• The Cuban Project, also known as Operation Mongoose (Cuba, 1961–1962)
• Brazilian Military Coup (Brazil 1964)
• Secret War (Cambodia-Laos, 1962–1975)
• Chilean Coup (Chile, 1973)
• Argentine Military Coup (Argentina, 1976)
• Operation Condor (Latin America, 1960s–1970s)
• Mujahideen vs. USSR (Afghanistan, 1979–1989)
• Contras (Nicaragua, 1980s)
• El Salvador (1981-1992)
• Pentagon-contracted advisors to Croatia prior to Operation Storm (1994)

Let’s get one thing straight, right from the beginning. I am not suggesting that we weep over the history we have wrought, nor do I see the US as a force for evil in the world. For the most part, I think our motives have been more on the side of angels, though a lot of our methods have not. However, the history of the world is complex, and what may have been ok in the past must be analyzed on a continuing basis. With hindsight, we can see the big problem with military action as a primary tool of foreign policy…unintended consequences.

Yep, who would have thought we would still be reaping the harvest of our overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, and the installation of our own hand-picked dictator, Shah Pahlavi? Yet, 29 years later the shah was overthrown by a rebellious and resentful populace, albeit one taken advantage of by Islamic extremists. Our embassy was stormed and overtaken at that time, and our relations severed with Iran…and still are. As a result, we encouraged and supported the military efforts by Saddam Hussein in launching a war against Iran, a war that lasted almost a decade, cost a million lives, and decimated the economies of both nations.

History does not happen in a vacuum. Seemingly unrelated events have historical consequences. After Iran was forced to a ceasefire, largely by US military pressure in the Gulf in 1988, and Hussein was humiliated in the eyes of the Arab world, in danger of a military coup, and desperate to resurrect his image and power…Sadaam Hussein set his sights on Kuwait, eventually leading to US involvement in the first Gulf war, and to our present circumstances in the Mideast.

…unintended consequences. Let’s get to the subject of this rant…a new approach to foreign policy.

It should be clear to most people by now that America can’t control world events through military force and the imposition of political will. If it isn’t, let me give you three major reasons we can’t:

1. We can’t afford it. Diverting resources to the military-industrial establishment will eventually turn the US into a 2nd world country. The 20th century may have been “America’s Century”, but the world is changing rapidly. If America does not get serious about solving the growing internal problems of our nation, and plowing the necessary resources into solutions for education, environment, health, and combating the deteriorating social construct, we will eventually reach the same outcome militarily; reduction due to lack of resources. If you were a political leader in an allied country, would you pony up for higher military expenses if you knew you could count on the US to always be there? Of course not, and that is exactly what has happened over the past 60 years.

2. America has lost support and respect throughout the world, and no longer speaks with moral authority. Because of the lies and deception of the Bush leadership, world opinion has plummeted ever since we launched a preemptive war against Iraq, with little support from the rest of the world. Remembering the Iran example, we have no idea of the consequences we will face down the road. One thing we can be sure of though, we have motivated Islamic fundamentalists, and radically increased the number of people willing to consider us as an enemy. The number of terrorists has increased dramatically since we launched our “war on terrorism”. Btw, have you ever analyzed what “terrorism” is? It is a method of warfare that has been employed throughout history, with great success, by those that are unable or unwilling to field a formal military. My next rant will delve into “terrorism” and explain why it is impossible to have a war on a “method” of warfare, but only upon defined individuals, groups, or countries.

3. Proliferation of nuclear technology and the resulting weapons is inevitable. Nine countries presently possess nuclear weapons. The total number outside of US control is approximately 17,000. The dirty little secret is that nations do not control nuclear weapons technology, people do. As has been demonstrated time and time again, there is no way of preventing people from sharing scientific knowledge, either for monetary gain, political advantage, or ideology. Did you really think nuclear weapons technology was spontaneously developed by all of these countries in the last half of the 20th century? Nope, it was individuals sharing for the reasons listed. Additionally, the technology for biological and chemical weapons is much more readily available than nuclear technology…for now.


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. 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. We need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past. We need to be a leader in the world community and not a rogue state.

America must lead by example. We need a compact, reduced military to be used for defensive purposes only. We need to set a stage for a new, cooperative world effort to minimize the dangers of future technological advances. Let’s stop creating enemies, and start cultivating friends in the world.

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.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Anonymous »

Whitney

  • Administrator
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2006, 11:20:36 AM »
Quote from: "chris"
America must lead by example. We need a compact, reduced military to be used for defensive purposes only. We need to set a stage for a new, cooperative world effort to minimize the dangers of future technological advances. Let’s stop creating enemies, and start cultivating friends in the world.

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.



I agree...great post
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Whitney »

epi406

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2006, 11:21:45 AM »
What a synopsis of world events in which the USA has been involved! Your ideas are well thought out and generous in a time that is dominated by personal greed and power grabs---exactly what we don't need now. Unfortunately those in charge put their own interests first and convince the rest of us that it is good for us all. I hope you are right and that uncommon sense will prevail ---but I will not hold my breath! Civilization would be great in your view.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by epi406 »

Asmodean Prime

  • Tech Admin
  • Administrator
  • Has Received Bacon
  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Father Of All Asmos
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2006, 11:22:54 AM »
Quote from: "epi406"
I hope you are right and that uncommon sense will prevail ---but I will not hold my breath! Civilization would be great in your view.



Thanks, epi. I know it's tough, but don't lose hope. If you take an historical view of events, we really have progressed as a species...although it is often a process of two steps forward, and one step back. However, I do believe technological advancement now requires us to abandon some concepts of "containment", in favor of a unified approach to world problems. If not you, who? I am from another generation...the youth of today must take that torch and run with it. (pardon the cliche. Wink )
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Anonymous »

iplaw

  • Not Sure About That Kool-Aid
  • **
  • Posts: 322
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2006, 07:51:15 PM »
Quote
We need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past.

Thank goodness you're not crafting foreign policy for any nation.  Sunshine, flowers and puppy dogs.. uh huh.  How do you propose we come to the table and negotiate with:

Hezbollah
Hamas
Al-Qaeda
Abu Nidal
Abu Sayyaf
Al-Aqsa
Ansar Al-Islam
Ansar al-Sunnah
Asbat al-Ansar  
Aum Shinrikyo
Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna
Batasuna
Revolutionary People's Liberation
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Ellalan Force
Epanastatiki Organosi 17 Noemvri
Gama'a al-Islamiyya
Harakat ul-Mujahidin
Harakat ul-Ansar
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jaish Ansar Al-Islam
Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad
Jemaah Islamiya Organization
Jund Al-Islam
Kahane Chai
Khuddam-ul-Islam
Kongra-Gel
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
Lashkar-e-Toiba
Lashkar i Jhangvi
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
al-Mansoorian
The Mujahedin-e Khalq
Palestinian Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi
PKK
Sangillan Force
Shining Path
Talaa'al-Fateh
Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn
Tehrik ul-Furqaan

Negotiation is NOT AN OPTION they exercise.  I know it's hard for you to understand this unwaiverable stance but they don't give two shits about PEACE with you or anyone else for that matter.  If you don't believe me I'll gladly provide you with pronouncements from many of these groups.  This is just a short list of many "terrorist" organizations which inhabit this earth.  They are comitted to your destruction and to the destruction of all western civility.  They wish for NO PEACE and are proud to state as much.  They have no fear of their own deaths or of sacrifice for their cause.  Please...enlighten us as to how you would deal with these groups by negotiation.  How would you have negotiated with the Third Reich.

Israel is a wonderful example of a country trying to negotiate with terrorists.  Even when you give them what they want it's never enough.  Israel agreed to EVERY demand that Arfat made, EVERY ONE, yet what do we see today????  What did it gain them??? Palestine refused to sign the peace treaty even though Israel agree to each and every demand.  They got NOTHING.  Oh no...wait...they have been subjected to incessant suicide bombing for the last 10 years.  Thanks, but no thanks.

That's the problem in this debate...most people are quick to dole out the criticisms but unable to offer viable alternatives.  This is not the classroom or the land of theory.  Ideas are great but results are better.

(Update:  Looks as if Israel has been reading my post and his about to drop the proverbial sh@t hammer on Hezobollah...L'shalom be'koach yasher koach!)
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by iplaw »

MommaSquid

  • Living a Thoughtcrime
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
    • http://www.randomthoughtsbymommasquid.blogspot.com/
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2006, 08:29:10 PM »
If Scott Adams' assumptions about the future of war and radical Islamic terrorism are correct, we're all in big trouble.  "Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" kind of trouble.


Link

None of the "organizations" iplaw listed can be reasoned with.  They will not negotiate.  Plain and simple, they want us dead.  The situation in the Middle East is only going to get worse and the longer our troops stay, the more likely they are to die.

I think our money would be better spent developing ways to protect ourselves against these insane people.  And we should stop buying their oil.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by MommaSquid »

iplaw

  • Not Sure About That Kool-Aid
  • **
  • Posts: 322
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2006, 08:40:13 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by iplaw »

iplaw

  • Not Sure About That Kool-Aid
  • **
  • Posts: 322
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2006, 08:49:31 PM »
Quote
I think our money would be better spent developing ways to protect ourselves against these insane people. And we should stop buying their oil.

Hear! Hear!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by iplaw »

MommaSquid

  • Living a Thoughtcrime
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
    • http://www.randomthoughtsbymommasquid.blogspot.com/
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2006, 10:59:49 PM »
Quote from: "iplaw"
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.  

I agree, we shouldn't let the rest of the world fend for themselves and focus solely on our nation.  That would be wrong on many levels.  But we only have so many resources to share with the world.  I think our government should pay more attention to what's going on within our own borders.

Like the flight attendants always say:

Quote
If you are seated next to someone who might need some assistance..., you should put your own mask on first, then breathe normally as you assist the other person. That way, if the other struggles, you will have a steady flow of oxygen as you fight the person to get their mask on.


(cute analogy, huh?)
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by MommaSquid »

Asmodean Prime

  • Tech Admin
  • Administrator
  • Has Received Bacon
  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Father Of All Asmos
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2006, 11:20:34 PM »
I agree with you, iplaw
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Anonymous »

Asmodean Prime

  • Tech Admin
  • Administrator
  • Has Received Bacon
  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Father Of All Asmos
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2006, 11:26:29 PM »
have you seen the website listed below?  scroll down the page for the real-time clock depicting the cost of the iraq war.

http://www.projectbillboard.org/

On a lighter note:
AMERICANS. Wipe out the Iraqi insurgency by simply joining their side. With your 'friendly fire' tactics, the war should be over in days.

Ok, Ok!  It was just a joke!  Lighten up.   It wasn't my creation, by the way, it came from the website below, which i think is quite funny.  If you care to look at it, once on the website, click on the 'top-tips' section towards the bottom right of the page, for more readers' top tips.

I said it was a joke, didn't I?   Lighten up, already!

http://www.viz.co.uk/
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Anonymous »

iplaw

  • Not Sure About That Kool-Aid
  • **
  • Posts: 322
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2006, 04:46:32 PM »
MommaSquid you are right.  Balance should always be goal and defense of our own borders should be on par with any international action.  To think that islamic fundamentalists haven't crossed our borders is narrow minded.  Unfortunately, when we try and protect our borders we get called ractist and bigots.  When we attempt to fend off terrorist actions within it's called an illegal abridgement of our rights.  There are some segments of this society name the ACLU who would never give their blessing to any corrective action, no matter how minor, taken within to discover and sift out even the evil within our own borders waitiing for an opportune moment to inflict damage.  Damned if we do, double damned if we don't.  Our PC mindset will be our undoing.  I don't often condone extreme behavior but we may eventually find ourselves in need of a modern day General Pershing.

http://mysite.verizon.net/jialpert/Poli ... rshing.htm
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by iplaw »

Asmodean Prime

  • Tech Admin
  • Administrator
  • Has Received Bacon
  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Father Of All Asmos
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2006, 03:49:51 PM »
Iplaw, I hardly know how to respond to you.  We should not negotiate with any of the groups you named, nor was it suggested.  Obviously, you have a limited understanding of history, or you would know that there have always been groups such as these.  The problem I was addressing was how we engage "countries" in the world, and how we have micro-mismanaged ourselves into precarious positions everywhere.  You can't stop nuclear and other types of proliferation through force, but only by building strong alliances. Our foreign policy has increased our vulnerability, not reduced it.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Anonymous »

iplaw

  • Not Sure About That Kool-Aid
  • **
  • Posts: 322
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2006, 03:54:12 PM »
First of all.  Don't talk down to me and tell me I don't understand history because I don't agree with your insane summation of US geopolitical strategy.  Face it, people will disagree with you and their disagreements have little or nothing to do with a lack of historical context.

Quote
building strong alliances

That was the jist of my response.  With whom do we build these wonderful alliances?  France, China, Russian, Iran?  Maybe you can tell me who?  Countries like France who state that Iran is a STABILIZING force in the middle east?  Maybe the countless Near and Middle East countries who seek our destruction, along with any other nation who opposes their brand of Islam?  How about Russia?  Probably not since they are blatantly aiding Iran and North Korea in their pursuits of nuclear technology?  Maybe China?  I think you can answer that one on your own.   You can't complain about the status quo without a real solution.  Big talk, little action.

Quote
Our foreign policy has increased our vulnerability, not reduced it.

Our foregin policy illuminates humanitarian and military issues worldwide and demands that those issues be dealt with and not swept under the table like so many other countries in this world wish would happen.  We don't stand by idly by and watch people get slaughtered, WWII taught us that lesson.  

We also don't let wackjob regimes gain power while the rest of the world world eats cheese and drinks wine pretending like nothing is going on, because when it comes down to it we get to clean up the mess.  No thanks, I'd rather deal with the cancer at stage I befor it spreads.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by iplaw »

Asmodean Prime

  • Tech Admin
  • Administrator
  • Has Received Bacon
  • *****
  • Posts: 143
  • Father Of All Asmos
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2006, 04:28:58 PM »
Frankly, I don't really care if you consider it "talking down to you".  I meant it.  You list a number of groups, the vast majority are local in nature, and use that as a justification.  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.  Secondly, apparently you are under the mistaken impression that we only negotiate with those countries that agree with us.  That is in complete contradiction to the history of the post WWII era, hence...your limited understanding of history.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Anonymous »