Appeasement

[sexual_chocolate]

And one more point:

 

What will the feelings on this board be if Spain now escapes any future "terrorist" attacks?

 

(Would this be similar to Yemen escaping economic terrorism by catering to the demands of the US?)

[klenke]

Though you seem to be clone of j_b, props to you for using correct punctuation and capitalization.

[sexual_chocolate]

Certainly better to be a clone of jb than a clone of summer sausage.

Edited March 18, 2004 by sexual_chocolate

[sexual_chocolate]

And as far as punctuation, capitalization, etc.:

Perhaps your supercilious eye could turn itself inward for a moment, and note what a fool it makes you look like.

[j_b]

If they really wanted to redress economic inequalities and eliminate unfair policies in their own countries, they would have a much better chance of doing so by initiating mass movements in their own countries which harnessed the demands and ambitions of their fellow countrymen

 

 

I don't quite understand your position above; most such attempts have been met with the most brutal oppression, be it in Saudi Arabia (our "ally"), or in Iraq (also our "ally", once upon a time).

 

My point is that "popular movements" within such rigid police-states are incredibly difficult; that's part of the reason why bin Laden is looked upon favorably by 66% of pakistanis, and enjoys widespread popularity in many other (most?) "Islamic" countries.

 

well, you know, "clear thinkers" like JayB can't afford to be held down by such trifling realities.

[klenke]

Perhaps your supercilious eye could turn itself inward for a moment, and note what a fool it makes you look like.

Ah, ya got me. I'm so unworthy.

[sexual_chocolate]

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in one of his famous "fireside chats" to the American people over the radio in 1940 said, "There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb."

 

 

Was he speaking of current US foreign policy, or something else entirely?

[sexual_chocolate]

Perhaps your supercilious eye could turn itself inward for a moment, and note what a fool it makes you look like.

Ah, ya got me. I'm so unworthy.

 

No klenke, not unworthy; I simply implied you were a fool. There is a distinction.

[Fairweather]

CONSPIRACY ALERT!!!! Is it just my imagination or does this new spanish socialist zapatista fella president look just like SHOOTER MCGAVIN from Happy Gilmore?? You decide...

 

 

 

 

...I now return to self imposed exile...

[JayB]

If they really wanted to redress economic inequalities and eliminate unfair policies in their own countries, they would have a much better chance of doing so by initiating mass movements in their own countries which harnessed the demands and ambitions of their fellow countrymen

 

 

I don't quite understand your position above; most such attempts have been met with the most brutal oppression, be it in Saudi Arabia (our "ally"), or in Iraq (also our "ally", once upon a time).

 

My point is that "popular movements" within such rigid police-states are incredibly difficult; that's part of the reason why bin Laden is looked upon favorably by 66% of pakistanis, and enjoys widespread popularity in many other (most?) "Islamic" countries.

 

well, you know, "clear thinkers" like JayB can't afford to be held down by such trifling realities.

 

Evil One - you are slipping. Note the use of capital letters. What will the masses think.

 

And SC - your are correct in your restatement of the obvious - that initiating and sustaining democratic reform is difficult in most states governed by an authoritarian regime, and impossible when the government is brutal and totalitarian enough, as was the case in Iraq.

 

However, there's a continuum of oppression out there, and there are many examples of situations where the populace has succeeded in securing democratic reforms by political means rather than terrorism. They have also generally voiced the concerns and aspirations of the public that they purport to represent. They have also shown an ability to gauge what issues to push, in what manner, and at what time.

 

The ruling class in Saudi Arabia, for example, would very likely hunt down and execute members of a political movement whose members targeted them for assasination, blew-up critical components of the economic infrastructure, and repeatedly stated their belief that they would like to see all of the idolatrous, infidel princes sodomized in hell by the devil for all of eternity. This same ruling class would arguably listen to members of a political movement whose stated goal was to further enhance the Kingdom's stability and prosperity by working with the royal family to promote a political environment that more effectively harnesses the talents and ambitions of their fellow countrymen, and enhances the public's investment in the prevailing political system via judicious democratic reform.

 

One might expect reformers to know as much and conduct themselves accordingly.

 

But I digress. The point is that if what really motivated the terrorists was a sincere desire to redress things like poverty, inequality, and the like their methods and their messages would be quite different. A cursory glance at their materials - widely available on the internet - will demonstrate that such things, are - ahem - not quite at the top of the list of their priorities, and providing adequate day care and hot school lunches for toddlers - while certainly causes that can best be championed by disembowling western tourists with car bombs - falls just a bit below "Slaying the Infidels Wherever They Exist" on most Islamic terrorists's to do lists. Despite the prevailing belief amongst members of the hard Left to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that these folks do not - actually - have many political goals in common with Jimmy Carter.

[j_b]

Evil One - you are slipping. Note the use of capital letters. What will the masses think.

 

if, like me, your readers are not too mesmerized by your prowess, they’ll notice that you are still cracking silly jokes instead of replying to my rebuttal to your initial post (the one in which you systematically distort my position and then bravely conclude that I am an apologist for terror). It is also interesting to note that you use the same tactics in this post (sc never said that terrorists wanted to redress poverty and inequality). But you keep going like if what others said did not matter.

 

And SC - your are correct in your restatement of the obvious

 

which you unfortunately overlooked because it did not support your diatribe

 

initiating and sustaining democratic reform is difficult in most states governed by an authoritarian regime, and impossible when the government is brutal and totalitarian enough, as was the case in Iraq.

 

and is still the case in egypt, pakistan, israel/palestine, jordan, saudi arabia, yemen, azerbaijan, algeria, afghanistan (all us allies by the way) and of course syria and iran. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list.

 

there's a continuum of oppression out there, and there are many examples of situations …

 

[snip ass-covering exercise in obfuscation, continuum of oppression ]

 

perhaps you should just cut to the chase and enunciate which authoritarian countries of the arab world have successfully undergone major durable change under the impetus of popular will in the past 50 years. can you think of many? if you do, place them in the category “sorry, pretty much none”. can you now think how many countries have crushed reformist movements (this, however, should be pretty easy). put these in the category “plenty gory”. now, count how many countries you have in category “sorry, pretty much none” and compare to the large number you should have placed in the category “plenty gory”. this simple exercise should hopefully provide you with a good idea of what is the probability for sustained popular change in the above countries in the context of the last 50 years. (note: if you followed the instructions correctly, you should conclude that said probability is poor)

 

 

But I digress. The point is that if what really motivated the terrorists was a sincere desire to redress things like poverty, inequality, and the like their methods and their messages would be quite different. A cursory glance at their materials - widely available on the internet - will demonstrate that such things, are - ahem - not quite at the top of the list of their priorities, and providing adequate day care and hot school lunches for toddlers - while certainly causes that can best be championed by disembowling western tourists with car bombs - falls just a bit below "Slaying the Infidels Wherever They Exist" on most Islamic terrorists's to do lists. Despite the prevailing belief amongst members of the hard Left to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that these folks do not - actually - have many political goals in common with Jimmy Carter.

 

indeed, you do digress (what is it with you guys and the listing of gory details? is it for effect?). whether or not terrorists are sincere is not the point. what matters is they find support and recruits among disgruntled populations that have legitimate claims against their western-backed despots. what matters is that our policies are driving these populations directly into the arms of the terrorists. as long as our only answer to their grievances is total disregard for their interest and continual support for the tyrants, we are likely to pay a heavy price in blood. on another note, I don’t remember us turning up our noses (and list gory deeds), when we trained and armed these same terrorists because they were good allies against the soviets in afghanistan.

[scott_harpell]

Ya'll just need to go out and get some pussy.

[JayB]

Thanks for the offer homes but I'm doing okay on that front.

 

Evil One:

 

The gist of your argument seems to be that if the governments in the Middle East were left to fend for themselves, they'd be unable to oppress any of their citizens, democracy would flower overnight, even the most petulant young men would search in vain for grievances to take their rulers to task for, and millitant Islamists would forget all about their perceived quarrel with the West. This is an entirely credible argument, given the precedent set by Iran.

 

The first thing that the events which unfolded in Iran 25 years ago did was demonstrate the validity of your contention that no amount of popular unrest can unseat an authoritarian ruler who has the US's backing. The second thing this that this episode proved was that once the cruel yoke of Western-backed authoritarianism was thrown off, all barbarity and political oppression would cease instantaneously and a humane democracy would immediately spring forth from the ashes of the fallen order. - because that is exactly what happened in Iran. Iran's case also established the truism that no government which does not maintain an alliance with the United States could ever preside over its population in a manner that would instill any sense of grievance whatsoever in the said population. The youth of Iran - happy as pie and not a grievance in sight. And thank goodness that within days of the revolution we never heard anything more from the clerics who had previously stated their antipathy for the West and its citizens. I think most of them turned their devotion and fervor to needlepoint and stamp collecting. No western support = no oppresion = no terror. Simple as that. One could also apply this tidy little nostrum to Afghanistan. No oppression there once the Western backed rulers were out of the picture, and nary a terrorist ever lashed out from beyond their borders either.

 

The pattern of terrorist actions in Iraq also lends credence to your thesis that the terrorists are really just a bunch of frustrated young democrats who would pretty much hang up there Kalashnikovs and go bury their Semtex somewhere if someone would just give them the chance to vote once in a while. Again - no mention of fulfilling their heavenly mandate to slaughter the Infidels, no public denunciations about combating the sinfulness and decadence of the West with bullets and dynamite - they're just aching for a parliament to call their own. The aim of the operations which have targeted the UN, peaceful gatherings of Shiites, and the Kurdish Political class is clearly to foster an accountable democratic government that will be responsible to the aspirations of the Iraqi people - not foment a catastrophic civil war that will leave the nation rife with discord, carnage, and ethnic feuding. That is especially true of the young men who have obviously concluded that the best way to bring about democratic reform in their own countries is to slaughter a procession of their fellow Muslims in the midst of their religious observances, and to assasinate the head of the UN's reconstruction efforts with an ambulance full of explosives. Thanks for the heads up.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

Evil One:

i see, continuing with the rhetoric that simple-minded individuals can understand. hum, reminds me of someone else ....

 

The gist of your argument seems to be that if the governments in the Middle East were left to fend for themselves, they'd be unable to oppress any of their citizens,

 

no, it isn't my argument. without western support these governments would eventually fall.

 

democracy would flower overnight,

 

no, i did not say overnight but it would eventually win the day. this is ineluctable given their exposure to democratic culture via the ever more omnipresent media.

 

even the most petulant young men would search in vain for grievances to take their rulers to task for, and millitant Islamists would forget all about their perceived quarrel with the West.

 

again, this is not my argument. my point is that if you do not give the opportunity to extremists to agitate the specter of the "great satan", they'll eventually disappear into insignificance, as you noted yourself in a previous post there is great desire for moderation in these nations.

 

This is an entirely credible argument, given the precedent set by Iran.

 

as if iran existed in a vaccum where reformists do not have to deal with fundamentalists prop-ed in their rage by western not so subtle interloping. similarly, iran was engaged in a terrible protracted war, that analysts likened to WWI, with a western ally. as if all of this did not affect the outcome of the iranian uprising.

 

The first thing that the events which unfolded in Iran 25 years ago did was demonstrate the validity of your contention that no amount of popular unrest can unseat an authoritarian ruler who has the US's backing.

 

again you are distorting what i said. i was talking about durable positive change, as in sustained. in this context, iran had a popular revolution that could only be started in the dark corners of mosques due to tremendous repression. they immediately handed out power to conservative mullahs bolstered by continued us opposition. unifying against the common enemy is a global theme you know, and as it so often happen democratic reform is the first victim of war against a common enemy.

 

The second thing this that this episode proved was

[snip rehash of what you already said, albeit in less colorful language]

 

in additon to my comments above, this is also a regional problem as shown by the tremendous impact of the palestinian conflict in the arab world.

 

the pattern of terrorist actions in Iraq also lends credence to your thesis that the terrorists are really just a bunch of frustrated young democrats who would pretty much hang up there Kalashnikovs and go bury their Semtex somewhere if someone would just give them the chance to vote once in a while. Again - no mention of fulfilling their heavenly mandate to slaughter the Infidels, no public denunciations about combating the sinfulness and decadence of the West with bullets and dynamite - they're just aching for a parliament to call their own. The aim of the operations which have targeted the UN, peaceful gatherings of Shiites, and the Kurdish Political class is clearly to foster an accountable democratic government that will be responsible to the aspirations of the Iraqi people - not foment a catastrophic civil war that will leave the nation rife with discord, carnage, and ethnic feuding. That is especially true of the young men who have obviously concluded that the best way to bring about democratic reform in their own countries is to slaughter a procession of their fellow Muslims in the midst of their religious observances, and to assasinate the head of the UN's reconstruction efforts with an ambulance full of explosives. Thanks for the heads up.

 

what inane comments. i am not sure where to start.

 

first, i never claimed terrorists themselves acted in the name of democracy (will you get it right this time?). i actually think the opposite. second, although i believe al-qaeda claimed the bombing of un headquarters, you (and everyone else) have no idea who is committing most of these bloody senseless acts. a slew of entities are likely to benefit from civil war in iraq, including pro-western entities since it is likely we will not be able to impose our model onto iraqis.