The Red and Black

Originally posted by

Winslo

Ah ......... Zaid ! So this is who you are !

Yes, your statement gives you away. You ARE trying to rationalize terrorism.

Short story. In May of 1970, the "May Day" anti-Vietnam War demonstrations were on all over the country and most Georgia students were using it as a silly excuse to cut class. Being a USMC combat veteran who was paying my own way through UGA I showed up to an empty classroom. The following was written (I assume by the professor) on the blackboard:

"When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, he will surely be enslaved or killed by the uncivilized who can."

Ignorance is bliss .......... enjoy your euphoria !

I don't think he is "trying to rationalize terrorism" at all. What he IS saying is that if we understand the consequences of our foreign policy we can minimize the threats to us, rather than blindly stomping through the world in pursuit of our self-interests and damn anybody who gets in the way. That's not rationalizing terrorism; it's understanding that we create enemies through many of our actions.

Originally posted by

Winslo

TO NONSENSE:


"I don't think he is "trying to rationalize terrorism" at all. What he IS saying is that if we understand the consequences of our foreign policy we can minimize the threats to us, rather than blindly stomping through the world in pursuit of our self-interests and damn anybody who gets in the way. That's not rationalizing terrorism; it's understanding that we create enemies through many of our actions."


OF COURSE HE IS (whether he realizes it or not) and that's the point. We NEED to make enemies of these types of groups and nations because of our actions in fighting terrorism and any entity who would destroy us, our allies and especially the State of Israel. There "is" good and evil in the world and there are "good (though not perfect) and evil" countries. Evil countries must be faced and sometimes if that means increasing the threats to us - so be it!

We completely destroyed Japan and Germany in World War II. Does that mean during the war they had the right to come over here and kill our civilians? No ...... they were evil empires and it had to be done. We were the good guys and they were the bad guys period. Did some of their civilians get killed in the process. You bet ....... and that is the fault of those regimes - not us. They could have surrendered at any time.

Do you think law enforcement in this country should make enemies of organized crime, drug dealers, bank robbers, rapists and murderers? Of course they should. Someone has to do it.

Appeasement is the enemy of freedom !

Winslo, someone needs to rationalize terrorism. Believe it or not, terrorists are rational actors and when given the opportunity to achieve their goals or objectives will act rationally in order to achieve them. By rationalizing terrorism, we come to understand the motives and the goals of those we seek to defeat. The current policy is to treat terrorists as mindless killing machines bent on destroying America because they hate what we stand for.

While it may be true that the ideals of Western culture run counter to that of the Islamic fundamentalism many of these terrorist groups adhere to, their reasons for action against Israel and the United States are much deeper than cosmetic cultural differences.

It is very true that US involvement in the Middle East has had a result in stoking the fires of terrorism. I don't just reference the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also our previous political involvement in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, etc. It creates a perception that the United States seeks to objectify and exploit the Middle East.

What the United States needs to do is engage Muslims throughout the Arab world in a dialog as to why we're in the Middle East and what our motivations are for being there. If its to snuff out oppressive regimes and bring freedom to the people, we need to say that. We also need to show them that the United States isn't anti-Muslim in terms of its foreign policy (a perfect example would be the US' involvement in saving predominately Muslim Kosovo from Serbian genocide).

US foreign policy should never involve just brute strength. Diplomacy has always been our most powerful weapon. The United States didn't defeat Soviet Union by amassing a vast nuclear stockpile. We did so by convincing the world that our ideals were better than the alternative... that freedom and democracy were better than communism.

In order to defeat this new opponent of Islamic fundamentalism, the United States needs to simply show the World (and the Middle East especially) that its ideals and values are far better than the alternative. You can't do that with any amount of bombs.

You mentioned that there are "good" and "evil" countries in the world. Those definitions of "good" and "evil" are based on one's vantage point. As Americans, we perceive ourselves as inherently good. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a global consensus that the United States is "good" country. That is why we need a diplomacy which convinces the entire world that our motivations are "good".

"Making enemies" of people doesn't do that. Of course we should seek to eradicate terrorism, but to do so while inflicting the wounds of discord throughout the Middle East doesn't accomplish anything. The people of the Middle East want an end to terrorism just as much as we do. Its a complete disruption of their lives and a threat to their security. We should involve them and aid them in shuffling of the yoke of terrorism and fundamentalism.

Making enemies is a tremendous threat to our national security... both physically and economically. We MUST have a foreign policy focused upon making allies and not enemies. We can still fight terrorism and bring an end to bin Laden. We just shouldn't try and piss as many people off as possible while doing it.

Originally posted by

Winslo

To Kirk Carter:

I hear you and you write and debate well but if you are a student I also know you have not been around that long. Everything you point out has been tried ad nauseum for years and years and years. Those who are bent on the destruction of Israel and our democratic way of life will only use "dialogue" to their own evil purpose. Sometimes you fight evil with money, education, reason and anything else you can think of but there comes a time when you fight it physically to DESTROY IT (i.e., Germany and Japan in WWII) or at least keep it in submission (i.e., North Korea after the Korean War).

Let me ask you a question to help you think in the right direction:

Can a legal immigrant from Iran come to this country, rent a piece of propery on a street corner, meet all the code requirements and open a Mosque for services with absolutely no hinderances on who can come?

Can a legal immigrant to Iran go there, rent a piece of property, meet all the code requirements and open a Baptist Church for services with absolutely no hinderances on who can come?

"Think in the right direction" or think in your direction? Just because I'm a student doesn't mean I lack the requisite knowledge or worldview to form a position on how American foreign policy should conduct itself. In the same way, you being an old man shouldn't cement you into one tunnel of ideology.

As a student of foreign policy and international relations I am more than capable of analyzing and processing past US foreign policy (although without the blessing of having directly experiencing it). At the same time, I'm capable of taking that information and using to help find solutions to current and future problems with the scope of international relations.

That being said, you're looking at the argument from the wrong lens. Iran certainly possesses far fewer freedoms than we enjoy here in the United States. I consider myself blessed and proud to be an American and to share in these freedoms. It doesn't mean that we should blindly bomb those who don't ensure the things set forth in our Constitution.

Through dialog and diplomacy, we can accomplish much more than air strikes and ground invasions. We haven't exhausted any diplomatic tools in Iran and we continue to ignore diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. I point to the invasion of Iraq. While it will ultimately end in the Iraqis having control of a free and hopefully prosperous democracy, the cost upon the United States has been tremendous.

This cost doesn't not just include the billions of dollars sunk into the war, but our global reputation, our perception in the Middle East, and the American lives lost. There is no way that we can continue to fight "wars of liberation" in the Middle East and expect to keep the United States up and running.

The concept of global hegemony is far off and fabricated. The United States simply lacks the resources and the resolve to physically create a global empire. What is very possible is a hegemony of ideals. Getting the world to buy in as to what we believe and stand for. American principles are far more widely idealized than our guns.

The leaders of nations such as Iran will certainly attempt to use "dialog" for evil purposes. It shouldn't dissuade us from attempting diplomacy with them. The Shah of Iran isn't going to magically convince Barack Obama or John McCain that Israel should be destroyed. The United States has its positions that it should hold steadfast to, defense of Israel is one of them.

Our end of the dialog should be used for creating bonds of trust between ourselves and the people of the Middle East. Diplomacy should go deeper than talks between statesmen. I'm talking about modes of cultural exchanges in an attempt to show each other just where each side is coming from.

More importantly our designs should be set on convincing the people of the Middle East that modernism and development are compatible with Islam. The people of Lebanon buy into Hezebollah because they aren't presented with an alternative. We as the West have the tremendous potential to sew the seeds of free thought throughout the Middle East and create political change from the ground up.

This notion of "destroying" Iran (I assume thats the target of your anger) is an idea of preventative war. Preventative war is a conflict designed to prevent a shift in the balance of power and nullify a threat not readily apparent but perceived. I don't think I need to go into the multitude of International Law covenants and agreements preventative war violates.

I'm glad I have a reputation for debating and writing well. I guess it precedes me. I however am not so high on my reasoning or argumentative skills, but I appreciate the compliment.

Originally posted by

Andy

Typical. Thanks Zaid! I should have know from history that its always America's fault. It is our fault that terrorists hate us. It is our fault that the utopia of communism didn't work. It is our fault that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It is our fault that there are starving people in Africa. It's our fault that AIDS is a global epidemic. It's our fault that the Palestinians are killing Jews! Its our fault that the Jews are killing Palestinians!

If we would just stop being the standard bearer for freedom and doing our best to ensure American interests in a dangerous world, there would be world peace!

WELL SAID ANDY !

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Sir Edmund Burke.

Originally posted by

Andy

Typical. Thanks Zaid! I should have know from history that its always America's fault. It is our fault that terrorists hate us. It is our fault that the utopia of communism didn't work. It is our fault that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It is our fault that there are starving people in Africa. It's our fault that AIDS is a global epidemic. It's our fault that the Palestinians are killing Jews! Its our fault that the Jews are killing Palestinians!

If we would just stop being the standard bearer for freedom and doing our best to ensure American interests in a dangerous world, there would be world peace!

If you're going to quote Edmund Burke you might also want to quote Yitzak Rabin, hardly anyone's stooge/ appeaser: "You make peace with your enemies, nit your friends."

Originally posted by

Winslo

To Kirk Carter:

You really are quite eloquent and loquacious and I know that's hard to do with your head in the sand .......... :o) It's a joke. Don't take offense.

However, if after you're fully grown with fully developed cognitive skills and married with a few kids and some monster enters your home in the middle of the night to harm your family, I hope you have something more than words to respond.

That's all this is on a much, much larger scale.

God bless ....... and I wish you well.

Winslo, I keep picturing you as Carl Winslow from Family Matters, its a thought that gives me a lot of amusement.

I'd say I possess ample cognitive skills at 20 and I'm quite grown as well. I don't need a family to have been exposed to the harsh realities of life. I've dealt with monsters Winslo, both directly and indirectly.

Nevertheless I believe what I believe because I've lived what I've lived.

By the way, I'm voting McCain, so I wouldn't say my head is completely in the sand.

Originally posted by

Winslo

To Kirk Carter:

I just made the "Winslo" thing up. I'm "The Corporal" on the Atlanta Constitution Blogs if you're ever over there sometime.

Good for you on McCain. I'll look for you to be Secretary of State someday (if I live long enough). But don't be a Neville Chamberlain !

God bless ................

I'm certainly no admirer of Neville Chamberlain (a conservative, I might add!), but has it ever crossed your mind that when he went to Munich in 1938 he was playing for time because he knew that had Britain had to go to war in 1938 (rather than when it did in late 1939 - really, spring 1940) it would have been defeated because Germany's weapons were so much supperior -- the RAF was still flying bi-planes for god's sake? No, thought not.