Since Al Qaeda began it's campaign of terror over a decade ago, they have consistently attempted to justify it with one demand: Stop messing with our land. They laid out three major complaints against America... (1) our military presence on the holy land of Saudi Arabia, (2) our sanctions on Iraq (which it claimed were hurting the Iraqi people), and (3) our support Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people. They saw the western world as trying to manipulate the Arab peoples in an imperialistic fashion, and it seems like they have been able to generate substantial support for this view.
(Some have argued that these aren't the true reasons - that Al Qaeda is actually only motivated by some fundamental hatred of freedom or just their evil hearts. I'll leave it to you to decide whether there's any actual evidence towards these claims or whether its just rhetorical demonification of the enemy.)
Thus, when 9/11 occurred we were faced with the question of how to treat these demands. We had the option of reforming our foreign policy in response to the terrorism-inducing anger it has resulted in. Instead, however, we classified such a policy as "appeasement," and deemed it therefore unworthy of even being tried.
The reason for this is that World War II apparently showed that anything that could be considered appeasement could never work. We tried giving into to select demands of Hitler's after all, and it only led to more warfare. Wouldn't giving the terrorists anything to be content about only lead to more terrorism?
That meant the terrorists would stay mad at us, and continue attempting to attack. Thus, we were left with two options: Do nothing, or attempt to destroy all the terrorists. We chose the latter.
Fast foward several years.... We are now faced with a war that is going nowhere. Al Qaeda's leadership is alive and well, still hidden from us, and has just recently released remarks ridiculing our war against them as a losing effort. Our intelligence still indicates we are under a great threat, even as our elections approach. We are still on code yellow - with select cities even higher. We have troops being killed in two Middle Eastern countries, both of which still seemingly house countless terrorists and are showing little indication of changing any time soon. Support for terrorist groups has grown among the Muslim world, and support for the U.S. has waned. Terrorists have successfully attacked multiple times all across the world, including the recent assaults on Russia. And worst of all, no possible end to this has been offered to us, beyond a vague claim that we can bring democracy to the Middle East and that somehow that will make extremists disappear.
At the best it's a stalemate, and we've played our best cards already. Our military is now committed, our popularity has been strained, and our budget is blown.
What are we to do now?
It's time to look again at that option we so quickly labeled "appeasement" and tossed aside without even really seriously considering it. Are there ways we can change our foreign policy that can both satisfy our needs and the Arab world's? Is there a way we can undermine Al Qaeda's argument that we are "against" the Arab world - the argument upon which they rely for their support? Is there something we have, in fact, done wrong in our relations with the Middle East that we could rectify to take terrorism out at the root - the anger that breeds it. That would be the ultimate preemptive maneuver.
But NO, they say - giving any concessions to the enemy is appeasement, they say - and appeasement never works, they say! Why? World War II proves it, they say.
But let's not forget that other instance of appeasement in World War II. When the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, Japan decided it was wise to appease us. They gave up their war in response.
Did that result in us attacking other nations with our nukes? No. In fact, we never used nukes again. We even gave up Japan afterward. Appeasement worked.
Yet, anything even remotely similar to that is not even worth trying now? How, in this time where all other options seem to be failing, can we make such a big assumption? Shouldn't ALL our options be on the table?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But let's not forget that other instance of appeasement in World War II. When the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, Japan decided it was wise to appease us. They gave up their war in response.
Exactly. They lost.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:(1) our military presence on the holy land of Saudi Arabia,
Our troops were in Saudi Arabia because one Arab nation had conquered another. They are there at the sufferance of the government of that land. Had they not gone there, a country would right now be groaning under Sadaaam's bootheel.
quote:(2) our sanctions on Iraq (which it claimed were hurting the Iraqi people)
I actually hadn't heard this was one of their demands. But this one is moot now, isn't it?
quote:(3) our support Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people.
This one needs to be worked out. Israel has faced the explicit threat of extermination for almost 60 years, and has the right to use force in the face of that threat. I am also not entirely comfortable with the human rights record of the occupation. A settlment here has to account for the rights of Palestinians while still providing for Israel's security. We can't rush that.
Frankly, I'll be ecstatic when we have no troops in the Middle East. And when that happens, there won't be any more sanctions against Iraq. But it needs to happen on the schedule of what's right and wrong, not because of Al Quaeda's demands.
So the question I ask you is, what form do you propose this apeasement to take? Pull out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq next week and cut of all aid to Israel?
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
mr porteiro head, So, you'd say Japan would be better off had they continued fighting and not appeased us?
[ September 12, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We turned out to be a very nice "conqueror," didn't we. Does anyone think Al Quaeda would be as nice to us as we were to Japan (after the war ended, not during it)?
Dagonee
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Tres, did you just watch Pat Buchanan's interview on CNN? He said the exact same thing. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Japan didn't "appease" America, Xap, it surrendered. It's not as though Japan had all sorts of demands and America magnanimously granted them, rather, Japan said "OK, you win, we aren't going to fight you anymore," and America replied "OK then, we won't fight you either."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Xap -- they capitulated because they were beaten. They weren't beaten because they capitulated.
And as Dagonee said, they judged that they would be better off in America's mercy than still fighting us.
I don't believe we would be better off in Al Qaeda's mercy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, we did require pretty much total surrender and occupation.
It turned out well for them, but historically speaking they were taking a hell of a risk.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Doing some of the things Al-Qaeda would like (withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, for instance) would hardly put America at Al-Qaeda's "mercy."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But had we followed those principles last time, Kuwait would still be an Iraqi colony.
And it might put Israel at the mercy of people who have sworn to destroy it.
Dagonee
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
If a terrorist demanded that I go to the store and buy some milk, should I stop buying milk for fear of "appeasing" the terrorist?
Being more critical of Israel's human rights record is the right thing to do, regardless of what the terrorists are saying.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But abandoning Israel entirely is NOT the right thing to do.
Dagonee
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
However, the terrorists are not simply asking us to be fair in our condemnation of violence in the Middle East. The terrorists are asking us to stop aiding Israel together, so they can blow the Jews out of the water. That I do not support.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I was too quick. We're in the same ballpark here, V.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Doing some of the things Al-Qaeda would like (withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, for instance) would hardly put America at Al-Qaeda's "mercy."
I don't think that Al-Qaeda will ever stop its war against us until we are.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Dag, you beat me to the punch. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It's not Al Qaeda we need to satisfy. It's the Muslim peoples that support Al Qaeda. If they stop hating America, they stop protecting, helping, and joining Al Qaeda - and Al Qaeda is marginalized, or at the very least becomes manageable.
This is, incidently, just what Bush is trying to do with his whole "bringing freedom" strategy that he now espouses. The only difference is Bush seems to think freedom will make them stop hating us without us having to change our foreign policy. I think freedom will just make them capable of hating us more openly, and that we are going to have change our policies towards them.
No, I don't think we have to do crazy things to achieve this, or do anything in a single week. You don't have to abandon Israel completely to convince the Arab world you will be neutral. You don't have to move the entire military out of the region in a month to convince them you plan to reduce imperialism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Apeasement is doing something you know is wrong in order to avoid violence.
It's not making changes that are morally right to make.
Dagonee
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Honestly I don't think the war on terrorism can be won. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought however.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Apeasement is doing something you know is wrong in order to avoid violence.
It's not making changes that are morally right to make.
Ah, now THAT is an interesting definition. I like it, but I'm not sure that's what many have been refering to when they have used the term. I think the more popular usage is along the lines of "doing something to benefit your enemy in order to avoid violence."
What do other people think?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Bombing them won't work.
Withdrawing won't work.
What's a superpower to do?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The other problem is that in giving in to the terrorists we encourage others to use terrorism in the future to gain what they want from America and its allies.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Al Qaeda has been cripled... BUT it is not really what it once was. It has become more of a movement than an organization. This means any Joe-shmo can set a bomb or shoot some people and claim he did it for Al Qaeda when in fact he's never talked to anyone in the network. Kind of like the Anarchists of yesterday.
Our troops are out of Saudi Arabia... have been for a year or more. The sanctions are lifted from Iraq.
How are we supposed to appease the terrorists?
The Arab/Muslim world is twice as poor as it was in the 1970's. Corruption and ignorance, not only the major cause of disenfranchised youths becoming terrorists, will cause the 22 Arab nations to become failed states soon. OSC in a resent article warned of the potential of a new dark age. Well... from what I can see the Arab world is on the fast track to that. They used to publish more books than the entire world.. now only one really is published.
For me, it comes down to the fact that the terrorists are basically just jealous of the West. And they are using the "great satan" line, as demagogs do, to blind people into following them... all so the terrorist leaders/warlords can set up little petty kingdoms. The terrorists are using the poverty and ignorance of the Arab masses to manipulate them. Terribly sad if you ask me.
The only way to stop terrorism is to bring the Arab world into the 21st century... or by developing a new cheep energy source. That way we can finally ignore the region and let them self destruct the way they want to.
But then... some other terrorist people will come out and use the line that we didnt' pay enough attention to them.... *sigh*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: You don't have to abandon Israel completely to convince the Arab world you will be neutral.
Do we really want to be neutral?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Anybody know why there aren't any terrorists coming out of the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, etc...?
If we could just figure that out, we could end terrorism forever.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Anybody know why there aren't any terrorists coming out of the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, etc...?
If we could just figure that out, we could end terrorism forever.
Because we (US and Europe) are educated, have democratic republics, and are fairly rich.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Doesn't stop it, though. We had terrorists in the 50s and 60s, and these included the well-to-do.
We have some today (McVeigh's ilk and some others).
Several European countries had terrorists in the second half of the 20th century, even when they were doing well financially.
I'm sure this has something to do with it, but there's something else going on, too.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
If only we could think of a way to bring that to the middle east peacefully.
But a distrust of us makes that impossible.
It's impossilbe to help them if they don't trust us, it's impossible for them to trust us unless we help them.
What's the solution?
Is there none?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's a question: does someone think that if we just turned Montana or New York over to the Israelis to be an ALTERNATE separate country, then declared that we were no longer going to prop up Israel as a state, that we could kill two birds with one stone, here?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I say we give them New York and California.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Israel wouldn't accept it, Tom -- the specific location is as important to them as to their enemies. I once figured we should just offer to make them our 51st state, but they would never give up the sovereignty.
I doubt any answer is going to fit into a single sentence.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:For me, it comes down to the fact that the terrorists are basically just jealous of the West. And they are using the "great satan" line, as demagogs do, to blind people into following them..
They are jealous the same way that too many Americans are jealous of the same sex marriages.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
1. Satan is different in Islam to how the Christians portray him. When a Muslim uses the word "Shaitan" she is not talking of some ultimate and all-consuming evil power, but rather of a tempter, a trickster, a (limited though still powerful) force whose purpose is moral corruption. It isn't that the Iranians want to portray America as the epitomy of all that is evil - and Shaitan isn't that for Muslims. Rather, they want to portray that what they see as American values (materialism, consumerism, self-sufficiency, greed) are a source of corruption, tempting Muslims away from the True Path.
2. The UK had the Brixton nail bombers not so long ago and still has the BNP and Combat 18. Sure, they haven't done anything high profile enough recently to merit a mention in the American press, but they have a surprisingly strong hold over parts of northern England (Bradford, Oldham, Burnley). Thuggery is not a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. It seems, however, to be remarkably prevalent where there are a large number of unemployed, single young males...
3. We need an Arab Mandela. For me, that stands out as the solution: someone who is respected on both sides who can bring forgiveness to the region, who can spark off change just by sheer force of example, and who brings other people with him - skilled people with the ability to deal with the details. Where we'll find him/her I don't know. Perhaps if the Cold War hadn't happened and the West hadn't helped many Arab governments to stamp out their liberal opposition (I can provide more detail, but it's late). And we as Muslims have to revive that liberal spirit and find a way of interpreting Islam which is tolerant, humane and intellectually sound. Therein, I hope, lies my future.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hear hear, amira tharani!
Very good.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:We need an Arab Mandela.
Indeed. A Palestinian Mandela would also be very, very good, if he or she lived.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Tom, Sudan or Angola or some poor remote African country was offered to the Jews as an alternative back in '48, but obviously the Jews rejected it. Why would they possibly give up their homes to live in some foreign land to which they have no ties or reasons to go there? Perhaps you don't understand the Jewish mindset. We've been banished twice from Israel, enslaved, oppressed by the Alexander, oppressed by the Babylonians, oppressed by the Romans, oppressed my every country in Europe, murdered in the Holocaust, and we're not about to give up now. Sure the Israelis don't want to be the victims of terrorism, but the only thing worse than fighting countless wars against multiple Arab countries and being by suicide bombers is to go back to the time when Jews didn't have a home. Besides, is anyone in Montana going to willingly leave their home or become part of a Jewish state?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I believe one of the original founders of the modern Zionist movement thought acquiring Israel was not likely. He was looking into setting up something in Uganda.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Right, it was Uganda.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Y'all are going to make me dig out my old notes on the origins of the Zionist movement, aren'cha?
Dags, Herzl was a founder, but of the secular Zionist movement. The movement as a whole really only got off the ground when the secular Zionists and religious Zionists teamed up. And one of the conditions of the alliance was going after Eretz Yisrael, and nowhere else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, I was just tossing that out for interest's sake. It changes the moral equation of any of this not a whit.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*nods*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You sign unfavourable treaties when you have lost a war, to the point where almost any treaty will protect your citizens better than continuing to fight. Some historical examples :
In ancient times, you did not sign treaties at all, because as long as your city walls were unbreached there was still hope, while if the walls were breached, there was nothing you could do to prevent the sack and your whole population being marched off in chains. Total war, as 'twere, and unconditional surrender.
The Romans signed many treaties of the form, "When King X dies, his lands go to the Roman Senate," which saved the Romans the trouble of raising a legion and maybe even losing a few battles, while King X got to live out his life. But this was after the Romans became overwhelmingly superior to any one city-state, or even kingdom.
The nation-states that formed in Europe between the Thirty Years' War and the Napoleonic War signed lots of treaties, because they didn't have the ability to conquer each other but they could hurt each other quite badly. If Province X was being invaded, the forts might hold for quite some time, but the area would be devastated. If you had an army on the way, fine; but if not, it might be better to sign over some part of Province Y, keep Province X productive and happy, and hope for better luck next time. Conversely, the invader couldn't afford to keep an army in the field forever; you never knew when someone else was going to take advantage of your distraction; better a province in the hand than ten in the bush.
The Great War should have been fought on such principles too. Once it was clear that the German attack was not going to take Paris in the first rush, the rational thing to do would be to sue for peace. The Entente nations could not have imposed very harsh terms, because the German Army was still extremely strong, and capable of killing millions of citizens. Of course, that's with hindsight and rationality, neither of which was available to the statesmen of the time. You'll note that Brest-Litovsk left Russia as a viable nation-state, which the Germans didn't need to do : Had they cared to, their army could easily have pushed the border to the Urals, or the Pacific for that matter. But they were busy elsewhere - a perfect example of what I was talking about above.
World War II, of course, could not be ended by treaty. There was only one possible ending to a war with Hitler in control of one side. Even so, the treaty with Italy was a fairly typical one from the Napoleonic Wars : Change sides and we won't hurt you much worse than we already did.
These treaties worked, when they did, because the situation was reasonably symmetrical. Both parties had an interest in keeping the treaty : The losing side got to lick its wounds and prepare for the next one. The winning side got some gains, could go back to business as usual, and no longer had to worry about someone else attacking. Further, the entire Concert of Europe would come down like a hammer on anyone who broke a treaty, because it was in everyone's interest that states keep their word. Pacta sunt servanda, treaties must be kept, was the first principle of European diplomacy for many centuries. This is also how Hitler had such success : Any rational statesman would be satisfied with the spectacular diplomatic coups of Ruhr, Anschluss, and Czechoslovakia. But Hitler didn't believe in keeping treaties.
But none of this applies to the terrorists. There are no third-party states to keep them honest : They are already at war with every state that is not actively supporting them. (Comrade Bush talks the talk, but Al-Quaeda walks the walk). They cannot be satisfied with limited gains, because theirs is a Holy War not fought for rational, nation-state reasons. And they cannot return to business as usual and stop fighting, because they are outlaws in every civilised nation, wolf's heads against whom every man's hand is turned. Even if the treaty included an amnesty, how could we possibly honour it and still live with ourselves? And how could they believe it?
Finally, just how badly have we really been hurt? And how badly can we be hurt by these terrorists? Treaties are signed for the purpose of minimising damage to your nation and your citizens. If Al-Quaeda was demanind America give up bubble-gum, we might consider their demands, assuming the treaty could be enforced. But they are demanding that we give up everything our civilisation is based on! I submit that there is no hurt they can inflict, short of multiple nuclear attacks, that will hurt Western civilisation as badly as that. (After all, three thousand people? Not very pleasant, granted. But the tobacco industry hurts us worse every month). Therefore, quite apart from issues of enforceability, our best, most rational option is to hunker down, continue the fight, and hope for victory. If nothing else, by outliving the bastards.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Three cheers for King of Men! Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Thank you, KoM. I was feeling severely down and out after a night of miserable thought. I was kind of looking for a thread where I could suggest we bust Saddam out of prison and give him back his country with a nice helping of poison gas to use--then tell the rest of the world we were quitting, leave us alone, and anyone who attacks us gets a nuke up the arse.
Maybe I've been working by myself too long.
[ September 13, 2004, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sure the Israelis don't want to be the victims of terrorism, but the only thing worse than fighting countless wars against multiple Arab countries and being by suicide bombers is to go back to the time when Jews didn't have a home."
The point, of course, is that the Jews WOULD have a home. There's no logical reason why that home has to be on the shores of the Dead Sea.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
KOM -- very good post. I enjoyed it.
I'll make a small criticism, and that's in your use of the term "Comrade Bush". It doesn't seem to communicate anything except your contempt for the man, which was not necessary in this post.
In practical terms, what it accomplishes is it makes it harder for people that support Bush to keep an open mind and listen to your ideas.
You don't want that. As an opponent of Bush and his ideas, you want the people that support Bush to hear you even more than you want your co-detrac tors to. Using language like that just works against your purposes.
But enough of my negativism. That was a very good point that there is no third-part that will help "enforce" treaties.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: There's no logical reason why that home has to be on the shores of the Dead Sea.
Tom, as you know, logic doesn't rule the decisions of many people. Something can be illogical and still be the most important thing in a person's life.
Logic can be very useful, but it is not considered the font of all knowledge by everybody.
So just because there may not be a logical reason, doesn't mean there isn't a very important reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom: The main problem I have with your post is that you suggested Minnesota.
Have you been to Minnesota? I mean, it's COLD up there!
Geesh!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
"Appeasement" has not only succeeded when offered only at the end of a losing war effort.
Consider another prominent example of "appeasement" in American history... In the late 60s and 70s blacks and other minorities took to the streets, demanding equal rights. As the movement progressed, things got violent. Nevertheless, however, America decided to give them to a large extent the rights they demanded.
Did this result in even more street violence? Did it result in blacks demanding even more? No, it didn't. Once again, what could be termed appeasement succeeded.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, most of the demands that were met were granted specifically in response to non-violence. The impetus to do so was generated for many previously neutral (or apathetic) Americans by the violence used in response to the non-violence. It's a gross misrepresentation to say that the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and the implementation of Brown came about because of violence.
Who was more successful at achieving their specific agenda - Martin Luther King or Malcom X? Did the reforms made after the riots have near the effect of those peacefully obtained?
Dagonee Edit: And I stand by my earlier definition of apeasement, which means this example wouldn't apply anyway.
[ September 13, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Xap, your definition of appeasement would mean that I appease my car everytime I get gas. If I didn't it would stop working for me.
Posted by Strigidae (Member # 6850) on :
Hey Folks,
I just joined this forum, after discovering OSC's spot-on opinion articles recently. I am a Major in the USMC, flying helicopters in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. After reviewing the theme of this discussion, I can only state one thing that has become very lucid to myself and my Marines out here in the War on Terror: You cannot reason, negotiate treaties with, or appease to any of these knucklehead's demands.
The Taliban, and Al-Qaeda which has joined their cause on this side of the planet, are in this for very selfish purposes. This is essentially, to put it simply, a "war of attrition". The hard-liners, which are becoming fewer and fewer by the day, will eventually go away. This may take awhile, and in today’s immediate gratification society, that is going to be a hard pill to swallow. But swallow it we must! The majority of the "fence-sitters" will, in my opinion, eventually realize the futility of their "cause" and rejoin the human race as peaceful supporters of freedom.
If you could see what I witness everyday here, the beautiful people of this country finally realizing a semblance of order after centuries of strife and cultural oppression, I think the nay Sayers would understand and appreciate the monumental crusade (I'm sure I'll get dinged for THAT non-PC word) that we have undertaken to turn the tide of insanity that a handful of Muslim fanatics have ignited.
If we would have dealt appropriately with these threats during the last White House administration, I truly think we wouldn't have had such a feedbag for the liberal press to thrive on.
I'm essentially an Independent politically, but as I see it, we are moving in a direction that is best not only for America, but the rest of our planet's citizens as well.
Cheers,
Strigidae
[ September 13, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Strigidae ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, your definition of appeasement would mean that I appease my car everytime I get gas. If I didn't it would stop working for me.
What definition should we use? I was going by that definition because it is the one being used by those who say allowing the terrorists to gain any benefit from this war would be "appeasement."
If we are going by Dagonee's definition, giving Al Qaeda what it wants would not be appeasement, unless you believe its wrong to decrease our presence in the region and be more neutral towards Israel (which I, as you might have guessed, do not.) According to Dag, it is only appeasement if we knowingly do something wrong to pacify the terrorists - which I would not support and I don't think anyone has proposed.
quote:You cannot reason, negotiate treaties with, or appease to any of these knucklehead's demands.
What proof of this is there? It's easy to SAY the enemy is a bunch of madmen who don't listen to reason. But if we all always accepted that advice, wars would only end when one enemy or the other was completely destroyed.
[ September 13, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Tom, if it weren't Israel, it wouldn't be home anymore so than Germany, France, Poland, Russia, or any other country. It would just be place where Jews happened to live. Furthermore, Israel has historically been the home of the Jews. That's why every year on Passover we say, "Next year in Jerusalem." Remember, the Jews never voluntarily left Israel, we were expelled by the Romans.
Welcome, Strigidae.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, I would propose that the action Al Quaeda wants us to take with respect to Israel would be immoral. Certainly their intentions toward Israel are immoral.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Strigidae-- do you pronounce your screen name with a soft g or a hard g?
It's important. Um. . . for stuff. Yeah, stuff.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I don't think neutrality towards Israel and Palestine would be immoral. The Palestinians have as much claim to rule that land as the Israelis do, don't they?
[ September 13, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Strigidae (Member # 6850) on :
quote:What proof of this is there? It's easy to SAY the enemy is a bunch of madmen who don't listen to reason. But if we all always accepted that advice, wars would only end when one enemy or the other was completely destroyed.
Xap, Proof? How much do you need? Suicide bombers, beheadings, killing innocent civilians? This war WILL go on until either side is tits up. Seeing what I'm seeing daily, we're going to prevail, and they know it. Don't know what the press is talking about recently with the "Taliban/Al-Qaeda resurgence". All I can tell you is that we are running out of targets. Like I said, I believe this is a war of attrition, and until the fanatics have been permanently taken out of the equation, it's going to continue. Appeasement was left at the door of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a rural field in Pennsylvania.
quote:Strigidae-- do you pronounce your screen name with a soft g or a hard g?
ScottR, Hard G. Still musing why this would be important...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:musing: Hard G. . .
Srig-id-a?
Weird, man. Never mind.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Proof? How much do you need? Suicide bombers, beheadings, killing innocent civilians?
How does any of that prove "you cannot reason, negotiate treaties with, or appease to any of these knucklehead's demands"? All it proves is that they are willing to use violence to an extreme.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The people of Afghanistan did negetotiate with the Taliban and with Al Queda.
The result was a country in despair, with stonings and 50% of thier population living in enclosed solitude, only able to speak with their family, with widows going starving and with no hope.
There is also the Chaos factor. Whom do we negotiate with? Any agreement made with one terrorist cell may not be agreeable to the next. So do we give up Isreal to accomidate some of the terrorists? What do we do about the rest? How do we hold them responsible for keeping up thier end of the deal?
The problem would not be appeasing "The Terrorists". The problem is appeasing leader A by backing him, then having leader B bomb, murder, and kill because we are backing the wrong one.
Will the Sunni terrorists allow a Shi'ite backed terror group to come to power in Iraq? Will the Iraqi Baath'sts let a Saudi born Al Qeada leader take control?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)