Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zodiak
If this is the case, then we are failing miserably on the latter and still do not have satisfactory conditions for the former according to the 9/11 Commission report (which is not an entirely perfect document, but serves for the purpose of this argument). The truth is that we don't know when or if we will be attacked again. Al Queda takes its time and works very hard to engage in sudden, coordinated attacks often spaced years apart.
|
Of course. We WILL be attacked again, but so far, recent methods of deterring them have been far more effective than all of Bill Clinton's appeasement. For empirical evidence, Google "terrorist attacks" during the time of his presidency.
Quote:
|
Oh, and "accused of trying" to control the world is the rhetoric that you use that flies in the face of the evidence. We definitely interfere in world affairs, especially in the Middle East as of late. Two invaded countries, saber rattling with the rest, attempts to control resources all qualify in the interference category.
|
By your definition then, we "interfered" in Germany and Japan around sixty years ago. Your viewpoint was definitely not common in that period. The recent philosophy thatwe should get so little credit for all of the good the US has done is quite frankly, amazing.
Quote:
|
We have attacked hospitals in the war on Iraq, we have used napalm-like weapons in residential areas, we have unleashed tons and tons of atomized depleted uranium on a population, we have refused to count civilian deaths, we have privatized a country's resources wihout the consent of the people (see also Paul Bremer's conditions of sovereignty..they're quite unfair and give little wiggle room), we have tortured prisoners who may not have even been guilty, and we have engaged in collective punishment in Iraq.
|
You lost me with your first nine words, since they were incredibly lacking in perspective. The rest followed suit.
Quote:
|
This is not true. The Sudan and many other sub-Saharan African countries have been completely destabilized, violent, oppressive, and full of suffering for a great while. Al Queda is present in many of these countries and conduct operations there like any other place. Remember when we bombed the Sudan? That was direct action against Al Queda. [Wait, I thought our militaristic actions CAUSED terrorism. Now it seems to be the other way around.] In Central and Latin America, upheavals (often spurred by US intervention, see also Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina) have been responsible for many paramilitary incursions who practice terrorism in an attempt to preserve ideology for tin-pot dictators who engage in terrorism to subjugate their populace into complaince with the trade policies of wealthier nations that prop them up.
|
I didn't say ALL countries. Naming instances such as these is a very broad and inaccurate generalization. And, to use your word, not true in a great many cases. Or are you saying that EVERY Latin American or sub-Saharan country with the problems you mentioned fits your description? If not, my point is proven, even if you don't care to recognize it.
Quote:
|
As asserted upthread with two examples, terrorism has been curtailed by negotiation but not brute force both in Ireland and in Palestine (back when there was a peace process) and tentatively, Spain, who used the method of removing motivation for terrorism. This is not appeasement; it is treating one's enemy as a human being, no matter how we are reviled by their practices. Believe me, they are quite reviled by ours.
|
Interesting that (a) the Palestine situation is considered resolved, and (b) you consider negotiation to have resolved those situations.
Quote:
|
I am highly suspicious that either you did not read what I had posted above or are deliberately ignoring it. The truth is, one method has worked in the past and the other has never worked at all. Even though the evidence is shaky, there is still more supporting evidence for my hypothesis than yours because I have actually mentioned examples. As many have noted on this thread, a bullet to the head does not make any of us feel safer because it doesn't work. The empirical evidence supports that assertion, as well.
|
I am highly suspicious that you refuse to accept a viewpoint other than your own. I believe there is empirical evidence regarding the paucity of deaths caused by Hitler after 1945, Abu Nidal after 2002, or most recently, Saddam.
Quote:
|
I have seen no supporting evidence for your hypothesis at all. I find it rather unfair that, in light of no evidence, you are demanding that I "prove" my assertion without even raising a legitimate counterpoint. Proof is a two-way street, and I would be more than happy with anecdotal examples rather than have you go off on an extensive google search.
|
I find your "proof" to be contradictory at best. I can also see that you will never accept a viewpoint other than your own. Again, the "attacking hospitals" argument was such an incredible distortion of the truth that further discussion is indeed pointless.