DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on May 11, 2008, 01:21:24 PM
-
[...................]
Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible. This is well-known. What's gotten less attention are claims, made by Wesley Clark in 2003, that Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list as well. New credence has now been given to these claims -- credence that comes from examining passages in Douglas Feith's recent book War and Decision. In the book, Feith wrote of the September 30, 2001, memo from Rumsfeld to President Bush advocating "new regimes" in some states -- in quoting from the document, Feith mentions Afghanistan but deleted the rest of the list, putting "some other states" in brackets, seemingly as an irrelevant aside.
So the enterprising historian Gareth Porter did what, apparently, nobody deigned to do: he simply asked Feith what other states the Secretary of Defense proposed invading. Feith declined to say, for national security reasons, what the states were -- but the wily Porter pressed on, asking Feith what countries on Clark's list were in the document. Feith acknowledged, "All of them."
[.....................]
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200805070003#2
-
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b120/pdhinderlie/Zola%20Political%20Cartoons/PC_200505_AmericanLiberals.jpg)
-
Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and possibly Lebanon were on the hit list as well.
What a surprise. All on the list are known to sponsor or harbor terrorists.
-
And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?
-
And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?
Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source.
Are we?
-
Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source
No, lets just "talk" with them as they take over Lebanon.
By the way, we don't need to invade anyone.....
Bill Clinton showed we can pretty much bomb countries into submission.(see Milosevic)
-
And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?
Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source. Are we?
alas, for some, (which would be the vast majority of the ideological left), that would be no. Many would even argue that there really isn't a threat for us to be concerned about, and thus nothing we really need to stop. :-\
-
By the way, we don't need to invade anyone.....
Bill Clinton showed we can pretty much bomb countries into submission.(see Milosevic)
===================================================================
No, he pretty much proved that Serbia could be bombed into submission. Serbia was small and puny and had few friends.
Might I suggest that it there is trouble emanating from a country where some people dislike you, if you invade that country or bomb it, it is extremely probable that damn near everyone will utterly loathe you after you do so.
Observe how after about twenty Arabs bombed just three buildings or so in the US, everyone here was willing to attack Afghanistan, amd even Iraq, which harbored not one of the twenty bombers. Had the government chosen to whomp up a little interest, they could have bombed Saudi Arabia, Yemen and several other countries for good measure.
Do we really want everyone in Syria or lebanon to loathe Americans?
I do not think it is in the best interest for the 6% of the world's population that is the USA to want the other 94% to loathe us as mad bombers, invaders, and such.
Plus, we really do not have the manpower to attack all the places mentioned, and this therefore will not happen.
Not even the dumbest fool in the incompetent Juniorbush administration is going to invade Lebanon or bomb it flat, let alone Syria or Iran.
-
Might I suggest that it there is trouble emanating from a country where some people dislike you, if you invade that country or bomb it, it is extremely probable that damn near everyone will utterly loathe you after you do so.
Note that Isreal (few freinds) bombed Syria (even fewer freinds ) and the worlds reaction was null , Syrias reaction was to immediately cover the evidence.
-
Note that Isreal (few freinds) bombed Syria (even fewer freinds ) and the worlds reaction was null , Syrias reaction was to immediately cover the evidence.
======================================================================================================
I think that it is quite safe to say that Israelis and Syrians despised one another with remarkable vigor even before the recent attack.
Few civilians were killed in Syria, and that is what really pisses people off.
============================
Just suppose some crazy Ay-rabs bombed that airbase where you work. How many Americans do you think would be okay with that?
-
"Just suppose some crazy Ay-rabs bombed that airbase where you work. How many Americans do you think would be okay with that?"
None.
I even suppose that you would object.
So what keeps Syria from getting any sympathy?
-
"Might I suggest that it there is trouble emanating from a country where some people dislike you, if you invade that country or bomb it, it is extremely probable that damn near everyone will utterly loathe you after you do so"
Oh my really?
So allow enemies to do what ever they want to do
because they will "utterly loathe you" if you try to
stop them from carrying out what they want to do?
::)
-
Not even the dumbest fool in the incompetent Juniorbush administration
is going to invade Lebanon or bomb it flat, let alone Syria or Iran
Bombing Iran would suffice.
Destroy Iran's military from the air.
The others would very quickly fall into place.
Hezbollah can not survive without Iran.
-
So allow enemies to do what ever they want to do
because they will "utterly loathe you" if you try to
stop them from carrying out what they want to do?
=======================================
No, dummy.
It is not a choice of bombing them flat or allowing them to do as they please. You must be smart enough to know that.
You prevent them from doing harm to you without committing murder or mayhem upon them.
For example, is the only way to keep you from blowing stop signs and driving 75 mph down my street to open up on you with a AK-47?
I tend to think there are always alternatives to war.
-
Hezbollah can not survive without Iran.
==================================
That is an absurd statement.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party. It might not be able to lob rockets at Israel, but it could certainly survive without Iran. Your knowledge of world politics appears to be abysmal.
Bombing Iran will ensure that no moderate Iranian government will be able to come to power.
When Khatemi was in before Ahmedinejad, talks between the US and Iran could have resolved many problems. But Juniorbush was an asshole puppet of the NeoCons, and nothing happened. Iranians voted for Ahmedinejad because Juniorbush threatened their security
-
And so it makes perfect sense to invade all of them?
Yes. If we are serious about stopping terror at it's source.
Are we?
Good question. Are we? Should we be? Don't we want to keep terror as a tool ourselves? Isn't that why we don't take the "nuclear option" off the table.
-
Hezbollah can not survive without Iran.
==================================
That is an absurd statement.
Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party. It might not be able to lob rockets at Israel, but it could certainly survive without Iran. Your knowledge of world politics appears to be abysmal.
Bombing Iran will ensure that no moderate Iranian government will be able to come to power.
When Khatemi was in before Ahmedinejad, talks between the US and Iran could have resolved many problems. But Juniorbush was an asshole puppet of the NeoCons, and nothing happened. Iranians voted for Ahmedinejad because Juniorbush threatened their security
What has been preventing a moderate Iranian government from being able to come to power?
Is that moot or not?
-
Don't we want to keep terror as a tool ourselves? Isn't that why we don't take the "nuclear option" off the table.
Are we now redefining terror?
-
Are we now redefining terror?
Are we? I don't believe so. Do you?
-
Are we? I don't believe so. Do you?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror?
-
Are we? I don't believe so. Do you?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror?
In the same sense that shelling Richmond and burning Atlanta were , people give up warfare when they are hurt enough , sometimes this is a lot.
-
In the same sense that shelling Richmond and burning Atlanta were , people give up warfare when they are hurt enough , sometimes this is a lot.
Prosecuting a war to its fullest extent is now considered an act of terror?
-
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror?
If the point was not to frighten and intimidate the Japanese into surrender, then what was it?
-
In the same sense that shelling Richmond and burning Atlanta were , people give up warfare when they are hurt enough , sometimes this is a lot.
Prosecuting a war to its fullest extent is now considered an act of terror?
What should be the key diffrences?
-
What should be the key diffrences?
I would think a formal or equivalent declaration of war between two or more nations would be a good start.
-
I would think a formal or equivalent declaration of war between two or more nations would be a good start.
In what way does that preclude the use of terror or seeking to inspire terror in the enemy as a tactic?
-
In what way does that preclude the use of terror or seeking to inspire terror in the enemy as a tactic?
It doesn't. However i have never heard conventional warfare (no matter the weapon) tactics lumped in with terror tactics except by those more likely to be in favor of banning dodgeball on the playground. Have you crossed the great divide?
-
However i have never heard conventional warfare (no matter the weapon) tactics lumped in with terror tactics except by those more likely to be in favor of banning dodgeball on the playground. Have you crossed the great divide?
Not in the least. And please don't assume I'm talking about abandoning terror tactics. My comment about Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a derogatory one.
-
Not in the least. And please don't assume I'm talking about abandoning terror tactics. My comment about Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a derogatory one.
I think we are confusing acts that may instill fear (terror if you will) like an air raid or the massing of a million troops at the Yalu River to terrorist acts like the WTC Bombings 1 and 2, Lockerbie, Munich, OKC, London and Barcelona.
I don't think they are the same, though granted instilling fear, is a common denominator.
-
Using terror as a tactic is not the same as terrorism, I suppose that is an argument that could be made depending on how one wanted to define the terms.
-
No, we don't have to bomb every country we disagree with or who harbors terrorists.
The Cold War:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suez.htm
-
And if Eisenhower had backed the French and Brits, Nasser would not have been an Arab hero and the rise of Qaddafi, Hussein and Arafat could very well have been thwarted along with all the mischief they created.
-
Using terror as a tactic is not the same as terrorism, I suppose that is an argument that could be made depending on how one wanted to define the terms.
Thus my query concerning your inclusion of nuclear options under the umbrella of terrorism.
-
Thus my query concerning your inclusion of nuclear options under the umbrella of terrorism.
That is not what I said.
-
That is not what I said.
Then please elaborate, because that is what i got from what you said.
-
To me there is a diffrence in what comes prior, and what is emphasised.
We do want out enemys to have terror of what we would do to them if they were to attack us , but that isn't the only note we can strike.
A terrorist attacks so that he will be taken seriously , he has nothing elese.
-
Then please elaborate, because that is what i got from what you said.
Okay. You spoke of "serious about stopping terror at it's source." So I suppose the question then is, did you mean terror or terrorism?
-
So I suppose the question then is, did you mean terror or terrorism?
Specifically terrorism.
-
>>Many in the Bush administration were eager to invade Iraq immediately following the September 11 attacks, regardless of who was later deemed to be responsible.<<
Total bullshit.
Next.
-
So I suppose the question then is, did you mean terror or terrorism?
Specifically terrorism.
Ah. Well, therein lies the confusion. When I said terror, I meant terror, not terrorism.
-
Ah. Well, therein lies the confusion. When I said terror, I meant terror, not terrorism.
And when i said terror i meant terrorism, never dreaming that instilling fear of military reprisals would be equated with terrorism. Live and learn, i guess.
-
And when i said terror i meant terrorism, never dreaming that instilling fear of military reprisals would be equated with terrorism. Live and learn, i guess.
I'm not convinced that is what I did. In any case, is our goal to stop terror? Should it be? Torture (or extreme interrogation) has been defended with the argument that we need the enemy to believe we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves and stop them. If we claim to be trying to stop the use of terror, is that consistent with the notion that we need to be able to use whatever means to defend ourselves? I think we need to define what terror is, what using it means, and ask whether our goal is really to end it.
-
I'm not convinced that is what I did. In any case, is our goal to stop terror? Should it be? Torture (or extreme interrogation) has been defended with the argument that we need the enemy to believe we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves and stop them. If we claim to be trying to stop the use of terror, is that consistent with the notion that we need to be able to use whatever means to defend ourselves? I think we need to define what terror is, what using it means, and ask whether our goal is really to end it.
Your arguments have the consistency of jello, constantly shifting. Conflating military actions like Hiroshima with the criminal acts of 9/11. They aren't the same.
-
Your arguments have the consistency of jello, constantly shifting. Conflating military actions like Hiroshima with the criminal acts of 9/11. They aren't the same.
I don't recall having said they were the same. I'm not even the one who brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I spoke of not taking the "nuclear option" off the table.
But since you want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll ask again, if the point of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to frighten and intimidate the Japanese into surrender, then what was it? In my studies, limited though they might be, the reasoning for using the bombs was to psychologically impact the Japanese into deciding to surrender, ending the war without further loss of Allied troops. If the psychological impact intended was not terror, then what was it? If keeping the "nuclear option" on the table is not intended to cause a fear based intimidation of U.S. strength in order to persuade others to comply with our wishes (however benevolent those wishes are), then what is it intended to accomplish? If waterboarding is not intended to cause fear and to intimidate an interrogation subject into answering the interrogator's questions, then what is it the intent?
If you think this places military actions like dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on the same level as criminal actions like the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, then I suggest you're making that connection on your own. I'm certainly not saying that they are the same. What I am saying is that we clearly use terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic. So I question again, don't we want to keep it as a tactic?
-
What I am saying is that we clearly use terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic. So I question again, don't we want to keep it as a tactic?
And what i am saying is that wars between nations and the fear and trepidation that ensues are not on the same plain as acts of terrorism such as OKC and WTC. The actors are different. Sanctioning is different. Authorization is different.
Your analogy seems to place a SWAT team on the same footing as home invaders. And they aren't.
-
And what i am saying is that wars between nations and the fear and trepidation that ensues are not on the same plain as acts of terrorism such as OKC and WTC. The actors are different. Sanctioning is different. Authorization is different.
Okay, let's try a lesser question. Do you believe the U.S. uses terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic?
Your analogy seems to place a SWAT team on the same footing as home invaders. And they aren't.
Indeed. One can shoot back at home invaders without fear of being charged with murder. But what does the SWAT team do? They bust in loudly, point large firearms at people, seeking to disorient and intimidate. If criminals did this, they'd be charged with all sorts of crimes, possibly even murder if they killed someone trying to defend himself. SWAT teams, on the other hand, have authorization because they're police, and if they kill someone trying to defend himself, they are just doing their jobs. Indeed, not the same at all.
-
SWAT teams, on the other hand, have authorization because they're police, and if they kill someone trying to defend himself, they are just doing their jobs. Indeed, not the same at all.
SWAT teams have authorization based on a court order.
-
SWAT teams have authorization based on a court order.
That they can get because they're law enforcement. And if the aftermath of the Kathryn Johnston case is any indication, those warrants are not always justified.
-
I guess when terrorists have to get court orders before they can strike, then the situations might be the same.
-
That's cute, BT, but you didn't answer my question.
-
That they can get because they're law enforcement.
Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?
-
But since you want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll ask again, if the point of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to frighten and intimidate the Japanese into surrender, then what was it?
"If you can create sufficient fear in your enemies, you may not have to fight them. Always remember that terror is a form of communication." -- Dukhat, as quoted by Delenn
-
Every country that has nuclear weapons since 1946 has used them as nothing other than terror to scare any other countries from attacking them.
-
That they can get because they're law enforcement.
Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?
The U.S. Government has conducted programs that have included illegally opening mail, placing wiretaps, and conducting surveillance on thousands of Americans for many decades of the Cold War.
I always chuckle a little when the information gathered by the Stasi is looked upon in horror when the Church Committee and many other investigations have shown that the United States ("freedom loving" as we are) has been just as intrusive and fanatical when it comes to watching her own citizens.
-
Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?
Not that I'm aware of. And I'm not saying there should be.
-
That's cute, BT, but you didn't answer my question.
Whether the US uses terror as a tactic?
Are sentencing guidelines terror?
Are smoking warnings on cigarette packs terror?
Are weather reports terror?
I think you are bastardizing the term.
-
I always chuckle a little when the information gathered by the Stasi is looked upon in horror when the Church Committee and many other investigations have shown that the United States ("freedom loving" as we are) has been just as intrusive and fanatical when it comes to watching her own citizens.
====================================================
The Stasi was far more numerous than anythng the US has ever had. It was something like one of every five East Germans spying on the other four. They may have done the same things in the US, but they did it much less often.
I agree that it is a bad thing to spy on fellow citizens.
-
Whether the US uses terror as a tactic?
Are sentencing guidelines terror?
Are smoking warnings on cigarette packs terror?
Are weather reports terror?
I think you are bastardizing the term.
Because smoking warnings on cigarette packs are not terror, I'm bastardizing the term even though I never applied it to something so mundane? That's weak BT. And it still doesn't answer the question. You're evading. Asking if weather reports are terror is not in the same ballpark, or even the same city as my question unless you're trying to equate keeping the "nuclear option" on the negotiating table with a weather forecast. In which case the redefining, gelatin-like shifting and bastardizations would be occurring on your end, not mine. Don't blame me for your apparent unwillingness to answer the question.
-
Am I wrong in understanding your concerns for keeping the nuclear option on the table and labeling that action as a terror tactic is not equivalent to a worrisome label, weather report or sentencing guideline. All instill fear in some people, and that modifies their behavior. And isn't that the essence of terror and terrorism?
Using that definition, the global warming campaign is an act of terror.
-
Am I wrong in understanding your concerns for keeping the nuclear option on the table and labeling that action as a terror tactic is not equivalent to a worrisome label, weather report or sentencing guideline.
I'm not sure if you are wrong in understanding or not because I'm not sure I understand that sentence. Foolhardy fellow that I am, I will attempt to respond anyway.
I'm not sure what concerns you're talking about, as I do not recall mentioning in this discussion being concerned about keeping the "nuclear option" on the table. I believe I merely mentioned that we keep it on the negotiating table as a terror tactic. And by terror tactic I mean intimidation through fear of use of violent force, not as a gentle warning.
I'm not sure why you seem to keep trying to make this about me. Either the U.S. uses terror as a tactic in war, foreign policy and the like or it does not. Seems to me that the U.S. does in fact do this. You seem squeamish about this question. Apparently you are reluctant to deny that the U.S. uses terror, and at the same time, apparently you are uncomfortable with acknowledging that it does. Either way, the only thing you seem certain about is that there is something wrong with me. You keep accusing me of shifting and changing things while you're the one squirming around, avoiding answering a yes or no question. In any case, I see no reason for this to be a personal matter. Again, either the U.S. uses terror as a tactic in war, foreign policy and the like or it does not. Whether I have any concerns about the matter is entirely irrelevant to the question.
All instill fear in some people, and that modifies their behavior. And isn't that the essence of terror and terrorism?
Using that definition, the global warming campaign is an act of terror.
No, that is not the essence of terror or terrorism. A threat of force and/or violent action is not the same as a weather report or a health warning on a pack of cigarettes. It's not even close. Making sure enemies and/or people with whom we negotiate know that we are willing to use nuclear weapons if we have to or want to is not at all similar to trying drum up concern about global warming. You're just taking nonsense. And still evading the question.
-
"If you can create sufficient fear in your enemies, you may not have to fight them. Always remember that terror is a form of communication." -- Dukhat, as quoted by Delenn
Points for the Babylon 5 reference. Excellent.
-
That they can get because they're law enforcement.
Are court orders for searches granted to any entities other than law enforcement?
Never jump bail.
-
The essence of terrorism is the attempt by non state actors to change government policy by the use of random violence to instill fear in the general population.
Blow up a plane and demand that we stop support for Israel.
Blow up a building and demand we close bases in Saudi Arabia.
If a nation-state did this it would be considered an act of war.
So no, the nuclear option is not a terror tactic. It is a legitimate bargaining chip. Used by nations when negotiating with other nations.
I have no issue with you. I have issues with your argument.
-
I have no issue with you. I have issues with your argument.
Then why didn't you just answer the question in the first place? Nevermind. Anyway, you apparently do not recognize a difference between terrorism and using terror. So I'll conclude that your answer to the question, if you were ever to actually answer the question, would be a no.
-
So no, the nuclear option is not a terror tactic. It is a legitimate bargaining chip. Used by nations when negotiating with other nations.
You miss that?
-
So no, the nuclear option is not a terror tactic. It is a legitimate bargaining chip. Used by nations when negotiating with other nations.
You miss that?
Not at all. You gave that answer only about 16 replies (of yours) away from the initial question. The most current question on the table, however, was "Do you believe the U.S. uses terror, not terrorism, terror as a tactic?" Which you still did not answer. That's okay. I think I have been able to reasonably deduce what your opinion is. And you didn't deny it. So, we're good. You got to act like there was something wrong with me and my questions, and I got a little mental exercise. Everyone wins.
-
Methinks you project too much.
Where did i ever state that there was something wrong with you?
-
Methinks you project too much.
Where did i ever state that there was something wrong with you?
Possibly the same place I supposedly was guilty of "Conflating military actions like Hiroshima with the criminal acts of 9/11."
-
Possibly the same place I supposedly was guilty of "Conflating military actions like Hiroshima with the criminal acts of 9/11."
That doesn't state there is something wrong with you. It states there is something wrong with your argument.
You understand the difference?
-
That doesn't state there is something wrong with you. It states there is something wrong with your argument.
You understand the difference?
Yes, of course. And I'm (sarcastically) sure there was no implication that I did not know the difference between military actions and criminal terrorist behavior.
-
And I'm (sarcastically) sure there was no implication that I did not know the difference between military actions and criminal terrorist behavior.
Even if you don't know the difference, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with you.
-
Yeah. Thanks for that.
-
Yeah. Thanks for that.
Are you takeing this stuff personally?
What is wrong with you?