Terrorism and the Left

[Haezed]

Yes, it IS hypocritical. Very much so.

 

Who cares?

 

That's why it's so painful when, for example, George Bush refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons himself...

 

Nor should he. We should have all options on the table although we should never use nukes except in response to a nuclear attack.

, or when he publicly panders to the "rapture is coming soon" crowd, or when he reduces complex geopolitics to white hats vs. black hats rhetoric. I think it's rhetoric, anyway.

 

I'd have to see the form of this pandering. Each side panders to its base though and 1/2 of Limbaugh's material against the left is just that - people saying things they dont' really mean to win votes from the base.

 

But I can absolutely understand someone, particularly someone from the Middle East, who doesn't think the United States can be trusted with nuclear weapons, for pretty much the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted.

 

The US could have established global dominance in 1945 through the threat of nukes. That gives us some credibility although I don't lay at wake at night worrying whether "someone in the Middle East" doesn't think we can be trusted with nukes.

[bascule]

It seems obvious to me that if republicans and the administration weren't going after terrorism, that no one would.

 

Let me approach this from two different angles. You're trying to lump two different things together here:

 

If the administration weren't going after terrorism, no one would

 

Yes, counterterrorism is left mostly to the president. Who else has the power to pursue it?

 

If Republicans weren't going after terrorism, no one would

 

I'd like to bring up Bill Clinton bombing Taliban training camps and "the right's" reaction:

 

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/24/freepers-re-writing-history-on-clintonmonicabin-laden-criticism/

 

Here's a sample:

 

Please pray for our pilots and sailors and that this does not escacalate. This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally.

 

Important point: Islamic extremists are Islamic first, very tight knit. I grudgingly respect their unity. This could spill over to many other countries. Our only hope is that the Islamics believe our administration was righteous in what it did. This is a litmus test of Clinton’s ability ot handle a diplomatic mess. PLEASE PRAY.

 

If the Islamics are too outraged, we need to get the bum out. If he doesn’t resign, he needs to be impeached. This is absurd. We have NEVER had a military leader asked if “this was wag-the-dog”. This can’t be good for foreign affairs or for our troops.

 

More questioning of Clinton's counterterrorism efforts as "wag the dog":

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/SUDAN/sudan.html

 

For the record, do most of the anti-war folks just not see terrorism as a big deal? 9/11 is a fluke? Or do they feel we deserve it? Capitalism is getting its due?

 

The problem was specifically that the Bush administration didn't care about counterterrorism prior to 9/11. Bush did nothing to pursue the Cole bombing. It happened on Clinton's watch, therefore it can be swept under the rug and ignored.

 

The Bush administration received multiple warnings from the CIA about potential terrorist actions.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200187.html

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/testimony.htm

 

The Bush administration has used the result of their own inaction to argue for the removal of civil liberties and action which has cost America hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

The Iraq War has turned Iraq from a stable dictatorship into a terrorist haven. Now they're arguing we need to stay there specifically to counter the threat they created.

 

My personal conclusion would be that Republicans were far more concerned with ousting Clinton than they were with terrorism prior to 9/11.

 

After 9/11, Republicans started playing lip service to the problem of counterterrorism.

 

Have they actually accomplished anything, or have they just thrown money at the problem, while substantially increasing it with the Iraq War?

[ecoli]

Yes, everyone knows that the administration fcuked up Iraq. But would leaving now help solve their problems or make Iraq less unstable?

 

I don't think so.

[the tree]

Honestly, I don't see that what the American government has labelled as terrorism is that big an issue. (yes, I playing into ParanioA's argument here, meh). At least, it's no bigger an issue than invasion, occupation, oppression, violent insurgency, sectarian violence and well, everything else which isn't an-attack-on-the-West-on-Western-soil.

The fact is, most of what's going on in terms of worldwide conflict isn't happening on American or Western European soil, and as that seems to be a requirement for anything to be called terrorism at the moment, it is a *relatively* minor issue.

So yes ParanioA, at least one liberal does think that.

 

(edit just to clarify, no, no-one deserved 9/11. And it certainly wasn't a fluke. The fact that it happened was not all that surprising.)

 

Regards nukes, I'm very much of the opinion that we should be getting them the hell out of our own backyards as a matter of urgency, getting them off the planet as a whole can come next.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, counterterrorism is left mostly to the president. Who else has the power to pursue it?

 

The congress and senate. We have a 3 teir system, and the president does not hold all of the power - by design. They have no problem pushing through non-binding resolutions on Iraq (even if they are to get vetoed) so why not resolutions on counter terrorism? There's no difference and that's no excuse.

 

I'd like to bring up Bill Clinton bombing Taliban training camps and "the right's" reaction:

 

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/...den-criticism/

 

That is a terrific point. You are correct that the republicans didn't have a supportive bone in their body when all this first came up. Party politics and ousting the president (clinton) was their only priority. (I think they were just jealous because they didn't get a bj from an intern). Clinton did recognize the threat' date=' and I don't blame him for a thing. It would be easy to blame Osama's freedom on him, but that's hind sight 20/20 kind of stuff and I don't believe in that kind of witchhunt.

 

On a side note, I like to point to that same administration and the media coverage at that same time, in which american policy to remove Saddam was born and WMD's were believed to exist in Iraq - all before GWB. The media was all over Clinton about not acting on the WMD threat in Iraq. Funny how they turned on GWB when he [i']did[/i].

 

The problem was specifically that the Bush administration didn't care about counterterrorism prior to 9/11. Bush did nothing to pursue the Cole bombing. It happened on Clinton's watch, therefore it can be swept under the rug and ignored.

 

Very true. Bush's campaign promises included dealing with Iraq - due to American policy established by the Clinton administration and, probably, revenge for dad - which I'm not against by the way since he was a president. But terrorism was ignored.

 

But that doesn't really answer my questions in that quote. Surely highly paid politicians aren't going to use Bush as an excuse not to pursue counter terrorism measures. That's a lame excuse not to do your job.

 

The Iraq War has turned Iraq from a stable dictatorship into a terrorist haven. Now they're arguing we need to stay there specifically to counter the threat they created.

 

I hear this alot, but all they've done is rearranged their location. Think about it. If you create a "hot spot" for terrorism, then you know where they are - they concentrate and focus on an area that isn't the US. If you don't, then they're spread out all over the place and quiet and you're left to believe everything is ok. Until 9/12...

 

Or, you can look at it like "let's fight and get it over with". Create a hot spot and fight it out. Instead of letting them fester in the 4 corners of the earth, indefinitely attacking for years and years and years...

 

Yes, recruitment is fueled by fighting them like this. Just like when you finally stand up to the Bully and hit him back, it pisses him off even more. That doesn't mean you're on the wrong track.

 

Or maybe all that is BS - it certainly is open for tons of criticism. But personal contempt for a bad plan is partisan, in my opinion. Particularly since no plan by anyone else has ever worked against this enemy - none.

 

And it still is no reason not to pursue counter terrorism ideas.

 

After 9/11' date=' Republicans started playing lip service to the problem of counterterrorism.

 

Have they actually accomplished anything, or have they just thrown money at the problem, while substantially increasing it with the Iraq War?[/quote']

 

And this is where the republicans have the democrats beat. They've certainly changed their view now and are trying to do something. The left can only point out their previous efforts and shit on the administration for late blooming - but they're not doing anything now.

 

The only problem I have with the war in Iraq is that it wasn't approved by the UN. I have a big problem with that. It was a UN resolution that was violated by Saddam, not an American resolution.

 

You keep going on about how Iraq has increased terrorism. Like it was going to just fizzle out like an american fad if we just remained pacifist. Just sit back and take it every few years when they decide to bomb our civilians? Is that your grand plan? Why is it bad to piss off terrorists? Why is it bad to fight them?

 

You do realize that no matter what you do, they will hate you and use whatever you're doing as a recruitment tactic, right? Unless you say you're sorry for being an infadel, and change yourself so that they like you, they're going to murder you. Is that what we should be doing?

 

See, that's the whole point of this post. You are doing exactly what the democrats are doing. Knocking ideas down, but not providing any of your own. That's suspicious to me. I'm not saying that you shouldn't knock down ideas that you believe are bad - I'm saying where are yours?

[Dak]

Well that was the joke. I wanted to use a smiley, but I thought it would ruin the effect. I don't think you're liberal at all.

 

now i am offended -- i'm certainly not a conservative

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You make some good points, but I don't think they'll flinch in at least selling the nuclear material, which is fear enough, imo.

 

yeah, well, if they're not gonna keep their nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists -- or submit to inspection so that we can be sure that they're not supplying terrorists with nukes -- then I guess everything i said pretty much becomes moot.

[Sisyphus]

Who cares?

 

Well, I do. And I suppose also anyone who's worried about America's long-term credibility. Or just anyone who would rather be the good guys, all things being equal...

 

If you'll notice, however, I still say we should try to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. I was just pointing out that it IS openly hypocritical of us to do so, since, frankly, the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted could be applied to the current administration. Is it exactly the same? No, of course not. But it is of the same kind, and, to be fair, the sheer power at America's disposal automatically amplifies the threats we pose. A miffed lion is more dangerous than a furious ferret.

 

The fact that I'm willing to acknowledge our hypocrisy, the fact that I'm deeply troubled by it, and the fact that I still think we should continue maintaining it ought to underscore how important I think it is to curtail Iranian ambitions.

 

I don't lay at wake at night worrying whether "someone in the Middle East" doesn't think we can be trusted with nukes.

 

How shocking.

[ParanoiA]

The fact that I'm willing to acknowledge our hypocrisy, the fact that I'm deeply troubled by it, and the fact that I still think we should continue maintaining it ought to underscore how important I think it is to curtail Iranian ambitions.

 

And to be honest, I would expect our leaders to pay lip service to that fact in the international arena. But realistically, I have no issues with the hypocrisy label. We know our intent. And despite our lack of credibility in the international view, I know we are not an imperialist nation that beats on the weak. That's propaganda and oversimplification.

 

And to bring another dynamic into view - since we are the superpower, we are the proverbial "big guy" to bring down. Everybody's got our number. Rewind 10 years and nothing is any different. If anything, the world's superpowers need the biggest armies, weaponry and so forth since they're to blame for everyone's problems and are envied - we call it hated.

 

I'd love to be wrong. Has there ever been a superpower the whole world loved?

[the tree]

ParanoiA, please reassure me and tell me you know that people have legitimate reasons for not liking America.

Funding during the cold war, what we now call terrorists. Endorsing Israel. The First Gulf War and not dealing with the consequences. Et cetera et cetera, you are aware of these things right? Of course you are, you're a conservative (big c?) but you're not an idiot. So please don't post implying that the only reason people dislike America is them being a superpower.

[Raphae1]

MAD only works on countries of people who are afraid to die. That's why I said "Allah will receive them". They don't care about death the way that we do.

 

[...]

 

These countries live and quite literally die by those beliefs. They legislate it. They enforce it. They punish for it. They kill for it. They are the epidome of religious rule. Don't pretend we are the same. That's propaganda.

 

I'm sorry, but claiming that "those people" are not afraid to die, is propaganda. You are dehumanizing those, you consider to be your enemies. This is flat out wrong and stupid. Yes, there are crazy people, who blow themself up like the japanese kamikaze fighters did. But it is stupid to generalize this behaviour to any countries population.

[hypertilly]

Perhaps because they know thats its all a game. essentially a lot of hot air.

During the eighties everyone was convinced that at any minute the Soviet Union was going to push the button and we'd all be wiped out.

But it didn't happen. A well trodden mechanism for getting what you want and the Republicans know it, is to continually make out that the other guy is the threat.

[Dak]

Actually, the nuclear threat posed by the USSR and the USA during the cold war wasn't just propaganda; on one occasion (around about the cuban missile crisis time, iirc) the two powers did come very close to launching pre-emptive nuclear strikes against one-another.

[hypertilly]

I think even our barmy so called leaders are not so stupid as to really want to push the button, who are they going to talk tough to, dictate to, demonise, invade and generally create war on when everyones been wiped out .

[Haezed]

Well, I do. And I suppose also anyone who's worried about America's long-term credibility. Or just anyone who would rather be the good guys, all things being equal...

 

America earned the right to have nukes by (i) developing them first to prevent the world from being violently nazified and (ii) only using nukes to stop a world war instead of cramming down policies as might a Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, et al had they been the first on the planet to gain nukes.

 

Life's not fair and neither is history. We got nukes first and are going to keep them because they can't be disinvented.

 

If you'll notice, however, I still say we should try to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. I was just pointing out that it IS openly hypocritical of us to do so, since, frankly, the same reasons we don't think Iran can be trusted could be applied to the current administration.

 

Again, who cares? The balance of terror has preserved the peace for 62 years. The US has been responsible with nukes and the Iraq war does nothing to change that. I disagree GWB is as suspect in his potential use of nukes as is the Iranian administration, the president of which has vowed to wipe Israel off of the face of the map.

 

Is it exactly the same? No, of course not. But it is of the same kind, and, to be fair, the sheer power at America's disposal automatically amplifies the threats we pose. A miffed lion is more dangerous than a furious ferret.

 

Damn straight we are dangerous. Good thing for the world, too.

 

The fact that I'm willing to acknowledge our hypocrisy, the fact that I'm deeply troubled by it, and the fact that I still think we should continue maintaining it ought to underscore how important I think it is to curtail Iranian ambitions.

 

If it makes you feel better to feel hypocritical, I won't stand in the way. For myself, I didn't ask Hitler to invade Poland, for Einstein to write FDR to encourage the initation of the Manhattan project or for E to equal MC2. It just happened and for us to get rid of nukes all would be the most dangerous policy imaginable. Hypocricy has nothing to do with it.

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, please reassure me and tell me you know that people have legitimate reasons for not liking America.

Funding during the cold war, what we now call terrorists. Endorsing Israel. The First Gulf War and not dealing with the consequences. Et cetera et cetera, you are aware of these things right? Of course you are, you're a conservative (big c?) but you're not an idiot. So please don't post implying that the only reason people dislike America is them being a superpower.

 

I can only give you reassurance that America is no more perfect than any other nation. We make good decisions and bad ones. But our effects are far more reaching because we are a superpower. So yes, the only reason we're hated, but not Italy, is because we're a superpower and they are not. Wait and see how China's popularity drops when they become the next one.

 

Now, proxy wars suck, but perhaps better than the soviet middle east? I'm thinking stopping communist expansion is a good idea when their leader bangs on a podium and vows for your destruction. Particularly after the global humanitarian cost of Hitler. I guess it's easy to judge people from the comfort of 2007, 20 years after the threat was resolved.

 

We endorse every nation on the damn planet - including Israel - and excluding hostile states. Israel gets more attention because everybody keeps screwing with them. Sounds reasonable to me. I don't apologize.

 

First gulf war? Everyone hates us for liberating Kuwait? Yeah, I'm not sorry about that one either. If you're refering to whether to take out Saddam, I don't believe that was our decision to make, but I'm not sure. The situation with the Kurds was horrible, definitely our fault, and is the reason why I throw my hands up about everybody arguing to get out of Iraq regardless of the state of affairs.

 

Yeah, I know most of the countries in the world hate us. I'm sorry they expect perfection and don't get it. I'm sorry they don't realize that most international issues don't have a perfect solution. That most of the time, the best solution still has negative consequences for someone down the line.

[CDarwin]

First: 'The left' is a stupidly general category.

 

Second: Just because you don't support military action X doesn't mean you love or are even indifferent about Islamic extremism. Contrary to all that testosterone pumping through your body, more guns are not the solution to every problem.

 

Third: You're relying on the old fallacy that bad ideas are better than no ideas. Do I wish Ted Kennedy had a workable plan for fixing Iraq? Sure. Does that mean he or I can't criticize other people's crappy plans? Of course not.

 

Not to mention the fact that there are alternative strategies to the Bush administration's floating around out there. The Iraq Study Group Report, for example.

[Haezed]

Yeah, I know most of the countries in the world hate us. I'm sorry they expect perfection and don't get it. I'm sorry they don't realize that most international issues don't have a perfect solution. That most of the time, the best solution still has negative consequences for someone down the line.

 

Wonderfully said.

[Haezed]

First: 'The left' is a stupidly general category.

 

Second: Just because you don't support military action X doesn't mean you love or are even indifferent about Islamic extremism. Contrary to all that testosterone pumping through your body, more guns are not the solution to every problem.

 

Third: You're relying on the old fallacy that bad ideas are better than no ideas. Do I wish Ted Kennedy had a workable plan for fixing Iraq? Sure. Does that mean he or I can't criticize other people's crappy plans? Of course not.

 

Not to mention the fact that there are alternative strategies to the Bush administration's floating around out there. The Iraq Study Group Report, for example.

 

 

It's always possible to criticize in this country (thank God). However, in policy debate eventually you have to propose an alternative to the present policy if you want to be taken seriously.

[ParanoiA]

I'm sorry, but claiming that "those people" are not afraid to die, is propaganda. You are dehumanizing those, you consider to be your enemies. This is flat out wrong and stupid. Yes, there are crazy people, who blow themself up like the japanese kamikaze fighters did. But it is stupid to generalize this behaviour to any countries population.

 

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm calling them all crazies. I don't mean that at all. Their culture is far more intense with religion and is more strictly adhered to. They are far more willing to die for supposed religious principles than the majority of the nations in the world, if it came down to it.

 

I don't think it's too far fetched to believe they can be manipulated into risking nuclear destruction. The germans were romanced similarly and without near the religious devotion in play.

 

Perhaps because they know thats its all a game. essentially a lot of hot air.

During the eighties everyone was convinced that at any minute the Soviet Union was going to push the button and we'd all be wiped out.

But it didn't happen. A well trodden mechanism for getting what you want and the Republicans know it' date=' is to continually make out that the other guy is the threat.[/quote']

 

Woah, you just left out a huge chunk of history there...

 

The reason "it didn't happen" is because we beat them in the cold war with our economy. Reagen knew our economy, capitalism, was our best advantage and exploited that. Again, when their leader hammers a podium and yells "we will crush them", and they have nukes - I'd say it's understandable to be worried. Sorry if you thought it was game. I guess we were all "playing around" during the cuban missle crisis right?

[Pangloss]

It's pretty unfortunate that the modern media has painted a portrait in which "pushing the bomb" utterly equates in today's young peoples' minds with "the end of the world". It's even more unfortunate that people think those bombs were built for no reason at all, that they would never have been used under any circumstances, and that the whole thing was a farce.

 

But those sentiments are certainly not uncommon. Too little critical thinking is done by too many in the current generation, which is more focused on how the government MUST be screwing them over than in how (as we were) the rest of the world is out to get what they have.

[ParanoiA]

First: 'The left' is a stupidly general category.

 

Actually it's quite appropriate. There are varying degrees of liberals and such, but left leaning folk tend to all line up on this one.

 

Second: Just because you don't support military action X doesn't mean you love or are even indifferent about Islamic extremism. Contrary to all that testosterone pumping through your body, more guns are not the solution to every problem.

 

Major strawman. And you're busted for not reading my whole post. I never said the republican ideas were good. And I never promoted testosterone - geez, how obvious and shallow that would be.

 

Third: You're relying on the old fallacy that bad ideas are better than no ideas. Do I wish Ted Kennedy had a workable plan for fixing Iraq? Sure. Does that mean he or I can't criticize other people's crappy plans? Of course not.

 

Busted, again, for not reading my post. I never said you should go with bad ideas. I didn't criticize the left for "criticizing ideas" - I'm criticizing the left about NOT COMING UP WITH ANY.

 

I don't have a problem with shooting down bad republican ideas - shit, keep up the good work! I'm talking about why don't they come up with ideas of their own? Why is it always the republicans pushing some kind of counter terrorism effort? <---- That's what this thread is about. Not the criticism stuff.

[ParanoiA]

But those sentiments are certainly not uncommon. Too little critical thinking is done by too many in the current generation, which is more focused on how the government MUST be screwing them over than in how (as we were) the rest of the world is out to get what they have.

 

Man, I just can't agree more. People I work with, people with college degrees, none of them seem to critically think anything at all. Everything is single layer thought.

[Pangloss]

Heh. Dude. Hang on a sec.

 

You do spend a lot of time characterizing the left, ParanoiA, and overgeneralizing when you do so. It's just a personal observation, not meant as an attack. The first post of this thread is a pretty good example. There's nothing wrong with you having that opinion, but you should expect negative reactions to it from any kind of open-minded people, regardless of their affiliations. How would you feel if someone made a characterization like that about the right?

 

My personal opinion is that ideological partisanship will always lead people to this kind of wasted-time impass. But I'm smart enough to know that that's just another kind of ideology. (grin)

 

(Edit: We cross-posted, but this was in response to #46. Thanks for the reply above.)

[hypertilly]

Well thank you Pangloss for regarding 40 as young. Thats given me a whole new perspective on my being. (joke)

Perhaps my view is one which is coloured by cynisim as I took part in politics during the eighties, stood back at times and observered. And then as now I realized how formulaic the whole political/ economic/ control game is. And yes I do see it as a game. Alliances one day then enemies the next. Most of what is really happening we are never told. The truth of what conflicts have really been about only trully surface many years after the event.

Try reading in between the lines a bit more. Don't alway accept the official line.

[ParanoiA]

How would you feel if someone made a characterization like that about the right?

 

I'm not a conservative though. I'm a little left and a little right - not a fence sitter either. More socially liberal and fiscally conservative - libertarian basically.

 

I guess I don't see the characterization as an insult but rather as fact. The democrats haven't put forth any counter terrorist efforts. I'm asking why, basically. Is it just no big deal? Like I said before, I can accept that. The Tree confirmed that and notice I didn't jump on his case at all about it. I expect the negative responses however.

 

My personal opinion is that ideological partisanship will always lead people to this kind of wasted-time impass. But I'm smart enough to know that that's just another kind of ideology. (grin)

 

But I'm not looking for a partisan battle. No really I'm not...quit laughing...

 

I really thought we'd be talking about apathy and terrorism for the most part.