Appeasement

[klenke]

So what is the way to deal with terrorists?

1) Get off the relience on mid east oil

In theory, this would be a good idea (and would take a long time) but it doesn't speak to how to deal with the terrorists now.

2) don't go to war against whole countries (Bush is a moron) but work with governments to find them in their small groups without so much global attention. True. Bush is a moron, but he's still probably smarter than you and me in regard to the terrorist subject. We're all morons here. Every damn person on this planet. Work with governments. Yes. This has been going on in many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Germany, Spain, Britain, Russia, and on and on; also Libya and Iran in the nuclear sector). It couldn't have gone on with Iraq while Saddam was in power. If the ruling party of a certain country is hostile (Iraq) then they're not going to help us in rooting out organizations that are for them (Baathists) and against us (coilition forces). It's hard to find small groups within a hostile country when they won't let us in the country.

3) Work with their countries to increase their quality of life, by their ideals not ours

It is certainly debatable if a Baathist-free Iraq is a better Iraq for the Iraqis. Can't really judge this yet. Need the democracy to take hold first then pass judgment. Give it another year or so. Things don't turn around overnight. What really isn't debatable is how much Saddam and Co. were stealing from their own people (which is not to say it doesn't happen in this or other countries too). Again, this is a different issue as to how to deal with terrorist groups. You can pump money into a country that harbors terrorists but who's to say this will appease the terrorists? You may find they can never be satisfied. You may find they'll still kill us to extort even more out of us. It is not advisable for the civilized world to kowtow to terrorism, else the terrorists will hold the real power. Do you really want to live in that kind of world? And yet, on the other hand, we have done this very thing in Afghanistan. We have helped to improve that country though in small steps. However, in order to enact that amelioration, we first had to dispatch the hostile ruling party (the Taliban).

4) stop pushing our "business" on the world (ie mcdonalds etc., not that you will find them in the mid east)

I agree but it's not the fault of the businesses. It's the fault of the governments over there not saying no to such "infiltration" of Western lifestyle. You can blame businesses such as McDonald's, Pepsi, etc. for not having the morals or ethics to realize they're pushing something into a country or region that is not needed by said country or region. However, it's still up to the governments to say no. Money talks.

5) EDUCATE THEM!, help build the things in life that build good people and communites, ie schools, housing etc.

Educate who? The terrorists? I would say that it is the duty of the goverments over there to build schools, houses, communities, etc. for their people. Why should any other country, much less the U.S., do this? It is then the job of governments over there to educate themselves then their people about what America is all about. You really can't expect America to go over there and set up a school and have people show up to be educated...in the American way...which you have already stated should not be foisted upon them.

 

All these would be a better use of our tax payer $$$ than overthrowing Saddam. Scrub is just pisssed he tried to kill his dad and drew the whole world into it.

Scrub being pissed: This may be true or it may not be true. Conjecture either way. However, this issue (and Saddam in general) is not germane to all terrorism everywhere. Before Saddam was Saddam in the 90's, terrorists organizations were around. They've taken up the "cause" for many reasons (the ETA wants a Basque homeland in northern Spain/France; Hamaj wants a Palestinian homeland/sovereignty). Terrorism is nothing new. So fighting terrorism is nothing new but it has been more front and center since 9/11--as it should be. Before 9/11, we were doing nothing overt against terrorism. The terrorists schemed and strategized for that day where they could leave their mark in history. What makes you think they would have stopped scheming and planning just because they had already done one vile act? They're not going to say, "9/11 has happened. Let's disband." Frankly, Bush had to do something about Al-Queda.

 

Philosophical meandering...

What really irks me (discombobulates me) about terrorism is that I can't figure out just what they want. Sure, they have esoteric causes (goals) in mind for themselves or their supposed followers, but they don't set it out in writing or in front-man representation (Sinn Fein notwithstanding). Why do they have to be so obtuse about what they want? It's hard to take anyone seriously who shouts epithets and tosses incendiary bombs around hidden corners then requests to be heard. Terrorism can never work in a civilized society. Therefore, terrorist groups may not actually want peace for their homelands.

[nonanon]

I'm saddened but not surprised that Spain can't be more like Florida...

[klenke]

There's irony in your comment, for Florida was once more like Spain before the English-bred bretheren turned it into an Anglo-Saxon land circa late 18th Century. (The oldest city in North America is or was once thought to be St. Augustine in Florida. It was a Spanish colony.) Now, with the continued immigration of peoples of Latino origin (Cubans, Haitians, etc), it's starting to look like Spain again. Interesting.

 

But Spain like Florida? Only if they build a golf course within every township and range and open up bingo parlors and retirement homes on adjacent corners.

[jjd]

Now, with the continued immigration of peoples of Latino origin (Cubans, Haitians, etc), it's starting to look like Spain again

 

ummm, yeahh....except that Haitians are not Latinos. A large number of Haitians are descendants of African slaves taken there by French colonists.

[Stonehead]

Philosophical meandering...

What really irks me (discombobulates me) about terrorism is that I can't figure out just what they want. Sure, they have esoteric causes (goals) in mind for themselves or their supposed followers, but they don't set it out in writing or in front-man representation (Sinn Fein notwithstanding). Why do they have to be so obtuse about what they want? It's hard to take anyone seriously who shouts epithets and tosses incendiary bombs around hidden corners then requests to be heard. Terrorism can never work in a civilized society. Therefore, terrorist groups may not actually want peace for their homelands. [/color]

 

Maybe these ‘terrorists’ provide the dialectic that governments can use to their advantage to maintain an invisible iron grip on their people. I seriously doubt some camel jockeys can plan and execute a major coordinated attack without state sponsorship. Perhaps many of these ‘terrorists’ are mere patsies who are conned into performing actions based on religious beliefs or other behavior controlling memes. ‘Die Hard’ was just a movie but remember that the terrorists claimed to be politically motivated for a larger cause when actually they were only thieves. Or, maybe the ‘real’ beneficiaries are the opposition. Have you read Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle? Remember the plot line about Bokononism and how it originated and remained in existence? Scoff at my using examples from fiction but recall that Tom Clancy wrote about terrorists using airplanes as weapons (Debt of Honor; Executive Orders). I would only think that things are not entirely as they seem and that our perception of the world as fed to us by media channels and public relations firms present only a portion of the way things really are.

 

 

Only the solitude of the mountains provides the breather from the insanity, ugliness, and stupidity of the sometime state of human affairs. For a brief moment anyway, until you return.

[Peter_Puget]

hey PP, you seem so eager to fight it out, i am surprised you haven't signed up yet. what about putting your feet where your mouth is?

 

in the meantimes, some of us will continue saying that fighting this kind of terrorism by force while we keep trying to impose our will on the populations they are issued from is a no-win situation. if you want to remove the threat of terror, give them something to lose such as the right to self-determination. it seems obvious enough.

 

Wow J-B still at the personal attacks. Something that often comes from your keyboard. In a greater sense your comments are anti-democratic. More specifically they are a dodge of my point which is that the mere appearance of political outcomes being dramtically impacted by terrorist activity will tend to encourage terorists. Such is human nature.

[klenke]

Stonehead, you make some good points.

 

In regard to your "Only the solitude of the mountains provides the breather from the insanity, ugliness, and stupidity of the sometime state of human affairs. For a brief moment anyway, until you return," I have a pertinent story:

 

My friend Mark and his father were backpacking in the Pasayten when 9/11 happened. He later told me that, about halfway through the trip, they decided to make a cell phone call from one of the summits. They were only barely able to get a signal. Well, they made the call the day after the attacks (or thereabouts) and the person they called felt the need to inform them about it, thus ruining their otherwise peaceful/unstressful trip.

 

It made me wonder if not informing them would have been the better action to take.

 

Then, in the weeks following the attacks when I was coming back to the city from the mountains, I would wonder here and there if Seattle would still be there. I wasn't obsessed about it, but it did cross my mind as a possibility.

[Peter_Puget]

Klenke -

 

I can remember hiking a section of the Muir Trail with a Youth group. One of the kids was from Israel. He was sent here (the US) in order to escape from the stress of life in Israel.

[Stonehead]

Yes, I remember a lot of talk right after 9/11 of military strikes to avenge the tragedy. I was on the way back from Three Fingers when I got word that we had launched a strike against the Taliban forces in Afghanistan (cruise missiles?). So, even then, in the wilderness with today's technology it's difficult to disengage from the madcap world. There are some of us who feel obligated to stay continually connected, almost like an addictive fix of technology or to the feeling of power that technology confers.

[Cpt.Caveman]

some more guns ammo and fire bombs would be nice...

[catbirdseat]

(Klenke)Philosophical meandering...

What really irks me (discombobulates me) about terrorism is that I can't figure out just what they want. Sure, they have esoteric causes (goals) in mind for themselves or their supposed followers, but they don't set it out in writing or in front-man representation (Sinn Fein notwithstanding). Why do they have to be so obtuse about what they want? It's hard to take anyone seriously who shouts epithets and tosses incendiary bombs around hidden corners then requests to be heard. Terrorism can never work in a civilized society. Therefore, terrorist groups may not actually want peace for their homelands.

We are led to believe by our government that the terrorists want only to destroy us and our way of life. They may wish this, but it is not their primary goal. Al Qaida has been pretty clear on what they want from us:

 

1) US out of Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land home of Mecca and Medina

2) US out of Iraq and Afghanistan and all other muslim countries.

3) US to stop supporting the Israelis at the expense of the Palastinians

4) Overthrow of the Saudi Monarchy, which they see as being propped up by the US.

 

What they want for themselves is a Pan Arab single state under a single government ruled by Islamic Law (Sharia). These people are Wahabbites. They don't really care so much about the primarily Shiite countries, such as Iran. In fact they have shown a willingness to shed Shiite blood as in Kandahar.

 

The question is both can we and should we accomodate them. What can we do that is both in our own interest as well as removing that which fuels Al Qaida?

 

We can stop writing a blank check to Isreal. We can insist that they remove all settlements from the occupied territories. Why don't we? Because there are many powerful jews in this country who believe for religious reasons that it is Israel's destiny to acquire all of Palastine, without regard for others who may have lived there for 1000 years.

 

We can pull out of Saudi Arabia and we are doing this, albeit slowly. Where would we put out forward bases? That's a toughie, but right now Iraq is preferable to Saudi Arabia.

 

Can we get out of Afghanistan? Maybe, once we have killed or captured Bin Laden and Sheik Omar. The key to success there is the Pakistani army, and building up the new Afghan army.

 

Can we replace the monarchy? It is unlikely. The monarchy and the fanatical mullahs feed one another, need one another. I'll leave that for others to argue over.

[j_b]

Wow J-B still at the personal attacks. Something that often comes from your keyboard.

 

i strictly call you upon your outrageous comments. you think we should not budge from our policies and force arabs to buckle; fine, you can feel that way but perhaps you should commit to those feelings and act upon them instead of letting others be on the frontline. you want the riches conveyed by military might? go get them my dear.

 

In a greater sense your comments are anti-democratic.

 

i'll wait for an explanation because your next sentence does not follow?

 

More specifically they are a dodge of my point which is that the mere appearance of political outcomes being dramtically impacted by terrorist activity will tend to encourage terorists. Such is human nature.

 

why do you feel that the spanish people who have expressed themselves massively and continuously against bush's war on terror, should not have the right to choose a governement that will act according to their wishes? this my friend is anti-democratic. if the spaniards want to take themselves off the frontline where they were placed by a governemnt that did not listen to popular demands, more power to them. let those that benefit from controlling oil resources and finance israel land grabbing be their own agents. if the warmongers had to conduct their own war, they'd find compromising alternatives in a heartbeat.

[Peter_Puget]

Wow J-B still at the personal attacks. Something that often comes from your keyboard.

 

i strictly call you upon your outrageous comments. you think we should not budge from our policies and force arabs to buckle; fine, you can feel that way but perhaps you should commit to those feelings and act upon them instead of letting others be on the frontline. you want the riches conveyed by military might? go get them my dear.

 

What exactly does call upon you outrageous statements mean? Your are simply talking nonsense. I never said anything about budging from our policies I did suggest that the Spanish vote would be viewed as appeasement and that viewpoint will lead to more terrorist acts – ie more deaths.

 

In a greater sense your comments are anti-democratic.

 

i'll wait for an explanation because your next sentence does not follow?

 

More specifically they are a dodge of my point which is that the mere appearance of political outcomes being dramtically impacted by terrorist activity will tend to encourage terorists. Such is human nature.

 

why do you feel that the spanish people who have expressed themselves massively and continuously against bush's war on terror, should not have the right to choose a governement that will act according to their wishes?

 

I cannot find where I said they do not have a right to choose their own government – I do think that their choices do have consequences.

 

this my friend is anti-democratic. if the spaniards want to take themselves off the frontline where they were placed by a governemnt that did not listen to popular demands, more power to them. let those that benefit from controlling oil resources and finance israel land grabbing be their own agents. if the warmongers had to conduct their own war, they'd find compromising alternatives in a heartbeat.

 

Of course since your contention that I am anti-democratic is pure phantasy and is not supported by anything I have written, the paragraph quoted above is nothing than the rant of a person who does not have any regard for basic honesty. If you make up facts in a simple thread how can anything you ever say be taken seriously?

 

I stand by my prediction for Western Europe.

[willstrickland]

I actually agree with Pete...it will be viewed as appeasement.

 

What it says to me is that the Spanish leadership should have paid attention to their people's wishes to begin with. The appeasement issue wouldn't be an issue if Spain had never gotten involved in the first place. Only after sending troops and then withdrawing them does it become an encourgement.

[j_b]

What exactly does call upon you outrageous statements mean? Your are simply talking nonsense. I never said anything about budging from our policies I did suggest that the Spanish vote would be viewed as appeasement and that viewpoint will lead to more terrorist acts – ie more deaths.

 

you are conveniently ignoring that the terror threat is now greater than it was one year ago as is shown by the increased frequency of bombings and the very fertile ground for recruitment by terror organizations (facts acknowledged by many security analysts). this escalation is the direct result of our invading 2 muslim countries to control oil resources, to put the squeeze on iran and syria, only paying lip service to a fair resolution of the palestine conflict, etc .. all in the name of the war on terror. your suggesting that spain should not have voted the way they did because it would foster more terror is outrageous because it is precisely the continuation of present policies of confrontation (by aznar and his would be successor by proxy for bush) that would lead to more violence in spain, the uk, the us and arab nations. basically your comments amount to a refusal to acknowledge alternatives to the current disastrous policies and to frighten people into supporting perpetual war.

 

I cannot find where I said they do not have a right to choose their own government – I do think that their choices do have consequences.

 

you implied they made the wrong choice because it would encourage more terror, which as i explained above is dead wrong. i'll repeat it again, bush's policies of imposing his will upon arabs is the cause of more terror, refusing to stand by bush on the contrary will foster conciliation and conflict resolution.

 

Of course since your contention that I am anti-democratic is pure phantasy and is not supported by anything I have written

 

did you not suggest that the spaniards exercising their right to implement the policies they want was detrimental to the war on terror, therefore it was wrong? whereas in fact it is exactly the opposite?

 

the paragraph quoted above is nothing than the rant of a person who does not have any regard for basic honesty. If you make up facts in a simple thread how can anything you ever say be taken seriously?

 

which exactly points to your unability (or unwillingness) to comprehend/acknowledge the implications of your words.

 

I stand by my prediction for Western Europe.

 

why do you feel this way? because the euros are not supporting predatorial policies toward arab nations under the disguise of the war on terror?

[scott_harpell]

I actually agree with Pete...it will be viewed as appeasement.

 

What it says to me is that the Spanish leadership should have paid attention to their people's wishes to begin with. The appeasement issue wouldn't be an issue if Spain had never gotten involved in the first place. Only after sending troops and then withdrawing them does it become an encourgement.

 

But... The former government had no intention of a withdrawl and based on their polls predicted another term. One can assume that they also believed that they knew more about the situation and possible duties they felt needed to be done in Iraq. I don't think the average person has any clue what they are talking about in terms of international politics. Logistics is not the only reason a true democracy cannot work. The 'people' just cannot be informed on every subject and therefore need representatives which are knowledgable in their area of expertise that they (ideally) trust. So, I don't think you can just say "listen to the poeple."

 

The appeasement issue wouldn't be an issue if Spain had never gotten involved in the first place.

 

Is this really the case? If someone does nothing, does it not say something? Whether is says 'apathy' or 'allegiance' if Spain did not commit troops, it would likely convey apeasement to both the U.S. and to the terrorists; neither of which Spain would have liked to convey this to.

[Peter_Puget]

What exactly does call upon you outrageous statements mean? Your are simply talking nonsense. I never said anything about budging from our policies I did suggest that the Spanish vote would be viewed as appeasement and that viewpoint will lead to more terrorist acts – ie more deaths.

 

you are conveniently ignoring that the terror threat is now greater than it was one year ago as is shown by the increased frequency of bombings and the very fertile ground for recruitment by terror organizations (facts acknowledged by many security analysts). this escalation is the direct result of our invading 2 muslim countries to control oil resources, to put the squeeze on iran and syria, only paying lip service to a fair resolution of the palestine conflict, etc .. all in the name of the war on terror. your suggesting that spain should not have voted the way they did because it would foster more terror is outrageous because it is precisely the continuation of present policies of confrontation (by aznar and his would be successor by proxy for bush) that would lead to more violence in spain, the uk, the us and arab nations. basically your comments amount to a refusal to acknowledge alternatives to the current disastrous policies and to frighten people into supporting perpetual war.

 

I cannot find where I said they do not have a right to choose their own government – I do think that their choices do have consequences.

 

you implied they made the wrong choice because it would encourage more terror, which as i explained above is dead wrong. i'll repeat it again, bush's policies of imposing his will upon arabs is the cause of more terror, refusing to stand by bush on the contrary will foster conciliation and conflict resolution.

 

Of course since your contention that I am anti-democratic is pure phantasy and is not supported by anything I have written

 

did you not suggest that the spaniards exercising their right to implement the policies they want was detrimental to the war on terror, therefore it was wrong? whereas in fact it is exactly the opposite?

 

the paragraph quoted above is nothing than the rant of a person who does not have any regard for basic honesty. If you make up facts in a simple thread how can anything you ever say be taken seriously?

 

which exactly points to your unability (or unwillingness) to comprehend/acknowledge the implications of your words.

 

I stand by my prediction for Western Europe.

 

why do you feel this way? because the euros are not supporting predatorial policies toward arab nations under the disguise of the war on terror?

 

Ah more nonsense from the keyboard of J-B. I would only make the following comments.

 

1 Your "measurement " of terrorist threat is beyond embaressing and is hardly worth a reply. I would note that according to you measurement system we were safer on the mornign of September 11.

 

2 Many responsible people who were against the war see the potential for disaster coming from the Spanish elections See the following for an argument supportign this assertion:

Edward Luttwak , Fareed Zakaria

 

 

PP

[Jim]

Hmmmm. Also seems that may folks were predicting the current state of affairs pending Bushie's foray into the midle east.

 

And as far as appeasment. Seems that the former Spanish government was doing exactly that - licking the shoes of the US for a few crumbs - despite an overwhelming majority of Spainards against the Iraq intervention.

 

You use the 911 ploy almost as skillfully as the Bushies. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or terrorists. We're pouring money down a rathole and have taken our eye off the ball, the real terrorist hunt, where we should be putting out resources.

[arlen]

Why would radical Islamists want Western troops to withdraw from Iraq? They benefit from American presence in the Middle East, especially when it's accompanied by self-righteous blustering. Lots more angry folks stuck in poverty = more prospective holy warriors.

 

The Spanish election would look like appeasement if we were all fighting Napoleon. But in light of the current situation, it looks a little more like the Spanish people were tired of being lied to. Maybe our leaders can't comprehend that a non-christian could get us to paint ourselves into a corner--from which we either look like cowards or build support for their cause.

[Peter_Puget]

Hmmmm. Also seems that may folks were predicting the current state of affairs pending Bushie's foray into the midle east.

 

Hmmm ok simple statement but not really addressing any issue at hand.

 

And as far as appeasment. Seems that the former Spanish government was doing exactly that - licking the shoes of the US for a few crumbs - despite an overwhelming majority of Spainards against the Iraq intervention.

 

another simple statement not really addressing the issue at hand

 

You use the 911 ploy almost as skillfully as the Bushies. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or terrorists. We're pouring money down a rathole and have taken our eye off the ball, the real terrorist hunt, where we should be putting out resources.

 

I haven't been discussing Iraq as such but the impact of the Spanish election on possible terorist behavior. Get with the program Jim.

 

Sadly Jim as with your first post in this thread your desire to argue is not soupported by a logical argument. See highlights above. Both J_B and Jim seem to use every possible opportunity to attack with unrelated arguments and spew like an automaton the leftist party line. Kinda like one of those talking head shows where the interviewers questions are never answered as every question is seen not as part of a dialogue but rather as an opportunity to sloganeer.

 

 

PP

[scott_harpell]

Why would radical Islamists want Western troops to withdraw from Iraq?

 

That's simple... They don't, but it sure is a good recruiting platform eh?

[j_b]

1 Your "measurement " of terrorist threat is beyond embaressing and is hardly worth a reply. I would note that according to you measurement system we were safer on the mornign of September 11.

 

how convenient! why let oneself be constrained by facts? are spaniards (and western europe in general), moroccans, turks, iraqis safer from terror today than they were before the iraq war? btw most people feel that the iraq war has increased the terror threat so i am hardly alone in thinking so.

 

Many responsible people who were against the war see the potential for disaster coming from the Spanish elections See the following for an argument supportign this assertion:

Edward Luttwak , Fareed Zakaria

 

my, if you think they are reasonable (coming from the so-called liberal media too ). this is the same usual tripe: you are either with us or against us, a vote against bush/aznar is a vote for terror, yadda, yadda. well, it seems people worldwide are refusing this blatant manichaeanism because one can fight terror and not align themselves with current us policy.

 

otoh, this guys has his head on his shoulders: http://www.davidswanson.org/columns/spanish.htm

 

use every possible opportunity to attack with unrelated arguments

 

until you substantiate your assertions with evidence, they'll remain unsupported assertions .... i don't hold my breath though: as per usual, you'll fade away without providing substantiating evidence.

 

I haven't been discussing Iraq as such but the impact of the Spanish election on possible terorist behavior.

 

we already know perfectly well that you want to take events out of context and pretend there is no linkage between the iraq war and the increase in terror. the spaniards did not fall for it though.

[klenke]

PP --> <-- j_b

PP --> <-- j_b

 

us -->

 

me -->

[chucK]

Peter Puget is right that the Spanish election results will probably embolden terrorists and maybe help out their cause. However, I think the effect of the Spanish election on increasing terrorism will greatly pale with respect to the net effect of our Iraq policy. I have yet to see him bemoaning Bushco's missteps.

 

Other points: don't hold your breath waiting for the Spanish to pull out of Iraq. We've obviously got some pretty heavy leverage on them evidenced by their "willingness" to go along with this Iraq farce to begin with. Something tells me that during his transition to power, Zapatero is going to find out the true motivations for his country supporting the Iraq war, and he might have a tough time backing up his words.

 

Though the Madrid bombings were terrible, I think there is a silver lining to this in that the people in a democratic country were able to rise up against their lying government and it's controlling media and say, "enough's enough!" See this link Liars Lose: Regime Change In Spain, to take inspiration from this whole horrible turn of events.

 

It's inspiring to see a country take a horrible massacre and use it to collectively move their country in a positive direction. Particularly when juxtaposed with our country that used a horrible massacre to justify tangential aggressive foreign policy goals.

[Jim]

 

I haven't been discussing Iraq as such but the impact of the Spanish election on possible terorist behavior. Get with the program Jim.

 

Hey dude - you were the one to first bring up 911 in this discussion in a reply to JB. That seems to be a consistent theme in you aruments as in the Bushies - when in doubt yell 911. Pretty pathetic.