quote: LONDON - Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks, a report said Tuesday.
quote:The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror — the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — may have boosted al-Qaida.
Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.
Is this really a surprise? I admit, I don't understand the "war plan" or the "exit strategy" but it seems like nothing is going the way it was "supposed" to go. The neo-cons seemed to have a very "rose-colored" picture of what was going to happen. And even now, they seem undeterred, or unwilling to think they might have been wrong. You know, the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. I wonder why they keep insisting on continuing down this path that seems to be leading us to disaster.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't fight terrorism with guns. You can--and are kinda forced to--fight terrorists with guns, but not terrorism. If I've learned anything from watching the current state of Isreal and Palestine, it's that.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this really a surprise? I admit, I don't understand the "war plan" or the "exit strategy" but it seems like nothing is going the way it was "supposed" to go. The neo-cons seemed to have a very "rose-colored" picture of what was going to happen. And even now, they seem undeterred, or unwilling to think they might have been wrong. You know, the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. I wonder why they keep insisting on continuing down this path that seems to be leading us to disaster.
Because I don't think there is any other way to fight this. For all the naysaying, I've yet to see a plausible alternative.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al-qaida is no longer really an organization... it's become an idea or a movement. Anyone who hates the West can blow something up or kill someone and say it's for "al-qaida". Just like the anarchists back in the 1920's.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this really a surprise? I admit, I don't understand the "war plan" or the "exit strategy" but it seems like nothing is going the way it was "supposed" to go.
There is not anything at all surprising about how poorly this post-war effort has gone (except, perhaps, how wrong we ended up being about the WMDs.) In fact, it has gone almost exactly how I said it would go two years ago when we first started talking about it: Blowout military victory, followed by rebellion and civil war, resulting mainly in a new home for terrorist organizations and a new recruiting tool for terrorist organizations worldwide.
I mean, when terrorism arises from the opinion abroad that America is too powerful and imperialisticly using it's influence on the Middle East, there should be no surprise that terrorism increases when you start unilateral, unprovoked wars and set up what is essentailly a puppet government in one of the most important Middle Eastern nations. That is EXACTLY the thing terrorists are claiming we do, and by doing it, we prove them right in the eyes of the world. It also should be no surprise that there is civil war and rebellion when you conquer a country that has a history of internal warfare and that doesn't trust you to govern it. And it should be no surprise that the world begins to hate you when you blow off their say in international issues, and instead use your own overwhelming military power to start whatever wars you want in countries where you don't have or deserve any sovereignty.
I do not believe it should take a think tank of a government panel to see this. But the Bush administration apparently doesn't see it, even with all these studies pointing it out.
The question now is - will we eventually learn the lesson?
quote:Because I don't think there is any other way to fight this. For all the naysaying, I've yet to see a plausible alternative.
If we are so uncreative that the only choices we can come up with are doing nothing and doing something that increases terrorism, I think we are best off simply doing nothing. At least that won't cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
But then again, we should be able to figure something out that does not involve making ourselves look like an evil empire. Perhaps we should not write off working through the U.N., for instance. Perhaps we should even try doing the opposite of what we are doing now - and scale back our military influence in the Middle East. As long as our current strategy is making things worse, and as long as we feel something MUST be done, these other options should be at least worth a try.
quote:The neo-cons seemed to have a very "rose-colored" picture of what was going to happen. And even now, they seem undeterred, or unwilling to think they might have been wrong.
Thanks, Kayla, for giving me a reasonably good excuse to share a great quote I ran across this morning.
(Note: The "Peter Singer" quoted below is NOT the same "Peter Singer" that I occasionally rant about. This guy sounds like a lot more fun than the one I'm familiar with.)
quote:Neoconservatives widely predicted an easy occupation followed by an immediate peace, followed by "a flourishing democracy which would cause a domino effect across the region creating democracies elsewhere," said Peter Singer, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution. "And then the very first foreign policy position taken by this new democratic Iraq, run by their exile friends, would be to recognize Israel, and that would somehow end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and bunnies would dance in the streets, and we would find life on Mars."
quote: Because I don't think there is any other way to fight this. For all the naysaying, I've yet to see a plausible alternative.
what if we took half the money we've spend on an unnessecary war in iraq and divided it between the peace corps and international aid groups
what if we stopped starving farmers in africa through domestic subsidies
what if we forced israel to establish a palestinian state
what if we diverted money from the military to research and development of alternate energy sources to reduce our dependance on oil from the middle east
what if we ratified the various treaties we've walked away from over the past 4 years and joined the ICC
quote: what if we took half the money we've spend on an unnessecary war in iraq and divided it between the peace corps and international aid groups
It would be gobbled up by dictators who take anything we give their countries and eat it or channel it into weapons (depending on whether it's food or money).
quote:what if we stopped starving farmers in africa through domestic subsidies
...and began starving farmers here instead?
quote: what if we forced israel to establish a palestinian state
You mean like the one they've offered to establish a dozen times, only to have the bombings restart before the ink on the treaty dries?
quote:what if we diverted money from the military to research and development of alternate energy sources to reduce our dependance on oil from the middle east
It would go to waste, and our enemies would be emboldened to attack us.
quote:what if we ratified the various treaties we've walked away from over the past 4 years and joined the ICC
We would be bound to a lot of undesirable requirements and the ICC would be used to harass our leaders.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would be gobbled up by dictators who take anything we give their countries and eat it or channel it into weapons (depending on whether it's food or money).
true, this has happened in certain areas, but are you suggesting that all money which is given to other countries is used to support military dictatorships?
quote: ...and began starving farmers here instead?
i find it interesting that conservatives are the first to defend these type of protectionist policies. The difference is that the farmers in the country have other options, they live in one of the most prosperous and technologically advanced countries in the world. farmers in central africa have no choice but to farm, they live in a 3rd world country. If american farmers can't make money in an open market, they'll find something else to do, if 3rd world farmers can't sell their food because their prices are undercut by the developed world, they starve.
quote: You mean like the one they've offered to establish a dozen times, only to have the bombings restart before the ink on the treaty dries?
no, i mean by forcing them to do so. since 1949 we've given israel 74 trillion dollars in aid, and given them access to our military hardware. They would find life very difficult if we stopped donating. we have leverage with them but not the political will to use it. At some point maybe the country will relize that out support of isreal is one of (if not the) largest contributing factors to why we are hated in the arab world (read: our support of israel is a national security risk).
quote: It would go to waste, and our enemies would be emboldened to attack us
you mean like the money we spent on the manhattan project went to waste? or like the money we spent trying to put a man on the moon (what a crazy idea that was...) Do you really think "our enemies" really care how strong our military is? they attack by killing themselves. if anything the use of our military is emboldening our enemies to attack us, by pissing them off.
quote: We would be bound to a lot of undesirable requirements and the ICC would be used to harass our leaders
undesirable in the sense that we couldn't do whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, regardless of the consequences? isn't that what got us into this mess in iraq in the first place? and if these treaties and the ICC are such a liability why are we practically the only developed country not to have signed most of them?
yes, i know i was being naive, but not because they were bad ideas; they were just ideas that conflict with the established interests of people who have a different understanding of what's most important to protect.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: not because they were bad ideas; they were just ideas that conflict with the established interests of people who have a different understanding of what's most important to protect.
Ahh, not as naive as I thought. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:true, this has happened in certain areas, but are you suggesting that all money which is given to other countries is used to support military dictatorships?
I'm not sure how much of it does, but I see that it's the countries that most need the help that are run by such dictatorships. So I suspect it's a large proportion.
quote:no, i mean by forcing them to do so. since 1949 we've given israel 74 trillion dollars in aid, and given them access to our military hardware. They would find life very difficult if we stopped donating. we have leverage with them but not the political will to use it. At some point maybe the country will relize that out support of isreal is one of (if not the) largest contributing factors to why we are hated in the arab world (read: our support of israel is a national security risk).
If it were the Israelis who were untrustworthy, I might agree with you. Israel would gladly sign treaties with the Palestineans, but the Palestineans continue to reject treaties that offer as much as 95% of what they ask for and go on attacking even while the negotiations are underway. Israel "oppresses" the Palestineans because there is no other way to get at the constant stream of terrorists hiding among the ordinary people. They are our only reliable, democratic supporters in a sea of vicious dictatorships and abandoning them would be despicable in the extreme. It might be in our best interests, but that sounds awfully selfish, don't you think?
quote:you mean like the money we spent on the manhattan project went to waste? or like the money we spent trying to put a man on the moon (what a crazy idea that was...)
In theory, I like the idea of alternate energy sources. In practice, we have already spent many millions of dollars with little to show for it.
quote:Do you really think "our enemies" really care how strong our military is? they attack by killing themselves. if anything the use of our military is emboldening our enemies to attack us, by pissing them off.
I'm not referring solely to terrorists. We still have a fair number of enemies who would be happy to attack us with conventional forces if we weren't powerful enough to more than blow them off the map.
quote:undesirable in the sense that we couldn't do whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, regardless of the consequences? isn't that what got us into this mess in iraq in the first place? and if these treaties and the ICC are such a liability why are we practically the only developed country not to have signed most of them?
Undesirable in the sense that they would wreck out economy. (I got the impression that you were referring to environmental treaties.) Also, undesirable in the sense that they leave us defenseless (in regards to anti-ballistic missiles). Also, most other developed nations are smaller and less powerful than we are, at least in terms of population; they must depend on each other's goodwill anyway, and the restrictions are less of a liability. If they did not have to do that, they would individually be better off, but they have no choice--so they try to force the same restrictions on us, although we don't need them.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: the Palestineans continue to reject treaties that offer as much as 95% of what they ask for and go on attacking even while the negotiations are underway. Israel "oppresses" the Palestineans because there is no other way to get at the constant stream of terrorists hiding among the ordinary people. They are our only reliable, democratic supporters
the problem with making statements about "the palestinians" is that the don't really have any form of representative government, and while we could argue of the extent to which the people doing the negociations were in control of the people blowing themselves up, the bottom line is that a distinction must be made between the two if any process is ever going to work. if any lunatic with a bomb can derail the peace process for another year nothing will ever happen. but more importantly, i don't see how the consent of the palestinians is really required. simiply withdraw troops from the occupied territories, built a big wall, and let them take care of themselves.
quote: In practice, we have already spent many millions of dollars with little to show for it.
i haven't really looked into this much lately, and you might be right; we may very well have ran out of alternatives to oil, but let's hope not, considering oil is a limited resource. true, when oil starts to dry up other energy forms will be more viable economically, but is it really smart to wait till then? again, i see this as an issue of national security, and while we may have spent millions on the problem, i have no doubt that what we've spent so far is a pathetic fraction of what we would spend if this were a priority.
quote: We still have a fair number of enemies who would be happy to attack us with conventional forces if we weren't powerful enough to more than blow them off the map
i might be wrong here, but it seem that the only country we really need to worry about is china. true, other countries have militaries, and many are trying to develop nukes, but do you really think N. Korea is going to mount an invasion? i'm not arguing that we should get rid of the military, but look at the disparity in military spending. we spend over 3x as much as china, and 8x the closest thing to an enemy (russia). Notice that none of the members of the axis of evil are on that chart.
here's where i'll get really naive. if we're worried about being attacked, why don't we push towards an international peacekeeping force run by the UN? that way the entire world could help foot the bill for their collective security, and we wouldn't find ourselves in situations like iraq; there would be a specific body dedicated to enforcing international law. if we're going to talk about bringing to democracy to the world and eliminating totalitarian regimes, how could we possibly oppose such an idea? sure it would limit us, but it would also free us to spend our money elsewhere. as it is, many of the world's prosperous nations are benefitting from the relative stability which we've provided. that doesn't seem fair...
quote: wreck our economy
that's a little alarmist. it would cost money, but you pay for your quality of life. besides, we're starting to see the costs of medical care resulting from unclean air and mercury in the water...
quote: they leave us defenseless (in regards to anti-ballistic missiles).
we've been "defenseless" for half a century, the majority of which we were facing down a credible threat of MAD with a rival superpower. if you're worried about terrorist attacks, do you really think that terrorists could acquire an ICBM? if they are able to do that, they could certainly acquire a few warheads, and then we'd be screwed anyway. As for rogue nations, if the threat of MAD was enough to keep russia at bay, why shouldn't it work with other countries? more importantly, why do we want to force the rest of the world to also develop these systems at an extremely high cost, simply to have a tactical advantage for a few years?
quote: Also, most other developed nations are smaller and less powerful than we are, at least in terms of population; they must depend on each other's goodwill anyway, and the restrictions are less of a liability. If they did not have to do that, they would individually be better off, but they have no choice--so they try to force the same restrictions on us, although we don't need them.
i'm not sure what you mean here. are you saying that we're bigger and more powerful so we should be able to do whatever we want to do? As to not needing restrictions, how do you figure? We are the world's largest polluter, we just started an unprovoked war in which we threw standards of civil behavior out the window, and we hold the world's largest cache of nuclear weapons. how do we not need to be restricted?
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
