neutone

KMA, I have edited my comment, I apologise for using foul language in your fine company.

KMA-628

roach-

The history of American foreign policy really shows us nothing consistent as the manner and tone has changed over and over again. We were not popular decades ago and we are not popular today, nothing has really changed there:

i.e.

1) Before Nixon: Vietnam, etc.

2) Nixon Admin: Stained the office of the President in many country's eyes

3) Carter Admin: Royally f'd up in the middle east and probably could be held to blame for some of the problems that we have in that region today.

4) Reagan Admin: There was worldwide anti-US and anti-Reagan sentiment in the 80's.

5) Bush Sr. Admin: Gulf I, War for Oil, etc.

6) Clinton Admin: How many terrorist attacks against us? Another stain on the office of the President regarding Monica in the eyes of the world. Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Aspirin Factory? The largest attack on Iraq to that date., etc., etc.

To say that the anti-US sentiment is new is ridiculous. To say it is W's fault is equally ridiculous. We are not in a popularity contest. There is no way to appease everybody all of the time. Regardless of how we conduct foreign and domestic policy, our actions will be unpopular to somebody.



"people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves"

I would have to disagree here. The terrorists are two well funded to be in a "desperate situation". We are infidels, pure and simple. I have read parts of the Quran and remember some of the comments about how infidels should be treated (i.e. tear them limb from limb, etc.). The only way this is political is because their religion controls their politics.

Even if we remove our influence from foreign countries, we would still be infidels. We would still be the enemy. I don't remember us declaring jihad on them, it was the other way around. Some of the ideals we have as Americans are infectious, regardless of how these ideals spread. Even if we went isolationist and didn't spread democracy and capitalism, some people would still want what we have. Not to mention the countless countries that rely on the very money that comes from a system that you abhor. What kind of anti-US sentiment would occur if we turned off the old money spigot? If we pulled out of the World Bank? If we called in all of our loans to other countries? If we stopped sending billions and billions in aid?

I know this is an arguable position, but I am not of the opinion that we forced "Westernization" in the Middle East. Part of the whole "Westernization" concept is some people want what we have. Having been to many countries around the globe, I can see why.

Paxton_Free

That's an excellent question, one which I think the answer is a resounding "no."

There are many different types of terrorism and it's quite impossible to control every facet.

KMA-628

neutone -

Your language doesn't bother me. It was your comment in its entirety.

While it may reflect your own personal opinion, you used it as an attack on another member that was merely stating his own opinion. You lose the argument instantly by stooping to that level.

You can say the same things in a different manner, with more respect, and get your point across. A better worded reponse would continue the discussion rather then send it spiralling. That way, you do not alienate the person you are speaking with.

/also: I supported Presidents in the past that I didn't agree with. I may disagree with them, but I still respect the position that they hold. Regardless of who is in the White House, the position must be respected.--that's my opinion.

Lebell

It is a perfectly valid analogy, because Saddam was trying VERY hard to be Hitler.

Hitler a) invaded Poland, and justified it to the world. The world shrugged and said "Ok". Hitler went on to annex Austria, etc.

Saddam b) invaded Kuwait, and justified it to the world. The US responded.


Hitler a) rounded up Jews, Gypsies, gays, and other "undesireables" and killed them. The world said, "it's Germany's internal affair.

Saddam b) rounded up Kurds, Shiites, political opponents and killed them. The US asked the UN to follow through on their sanctions. The UN said no. (France said, "hell no"). The US acted.

Hitler a) simply wanted America to stay out of the war or since we were aiding England, to sue for peace after Japan attacked us. His real goal was to just take over western Europe. There were those in America that thought this was ok.

Saddam b) simply wanted America to stay out of the war while he took over most of the Arabian pennisula. There are those in America that think this would have been ok.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

filtherton

Saddam invaded kuwait, hitler invaded most of europe. No comparison. Intent alone does not a threat make. You have to have the capabilities, which saddam clearly did not. Do you honestly think saddam was capable of taking over the middle east? On top of that, do think he would then follow that with an attempt to take over the entire free world? The same saddam with the same iraqi army that couldn't put up more than a two week struggle against the u.s. army?

The people who thought hitler was none of their business were being shortsighted. I doubt there is much evidence, especially in light of the whole "no wmd's at all" thing that would portray the iraqi threat as anything more than marginal. While saddam would maybe appreciate the comparison, I think it is laughable that you would put saddam on the same level as hitler.

Besides, i thought that ww2 analogies were always in poor taste. Or is that only when the anti-bush crowd employs them?

KMA-628

That, to me, is a dangerous, dangerous thought.

Have you not seen all of the James Bond movies? Spectre/Dr. No/Goldfinger had nothing but intent and were definitely a threat to the entire world.

Anyway, I'm sure you get my point.

Intent is the first sign of a threat and it is also the best place to stop a threat.

I would much rather stop a terrorist that intends to blow up a building rather then arrest him after he actually committed the act.

noodles

to answer the question posted by the thread, not to respond to anyone:

no. it can't. you can't stop an idea.

filtherton

No, it's not a dangerous thought. Intent without ability means that nothing is going to happen. By definition. If i walk by my neighbor's yard and his pit bull starts barking at me from behind the fence and i know that the only thing separating me from death by pit-bull is the leash and the fence, that doesn't give me the right to shoot the dog. The intent to harm is there, the means to harm are not. Besides, there can be a huge chasm between percieved threat and actual threat, just ask our presidential candidates.

Anyways, bond movies aren't the best representations of reality. Very few known spies are internationally renowned playboys.

Intent is the first sign of a threat, but if that intent is supported by little along the lines of actual danger preemption can be a little counterproductive.

-and-

The war in iraq and the war on terrorism are separate issues.

hannukah harry

to add to what filtherton said, james bond didn't deal with people with the "intent" to do dasterdly things. they were actually "trying" to implement them.

some one who thinks "hmm... i want to blow up this building" but doesn't know how or have the means is no danger. and unless you want to start prosecuting people for thought crimes, there's nothing that should be done to him. once he starts going out and buying supplies to make explosives and drawing up plans, then you can stop him.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

KMA-628

Wow, just wow.

What is this person's next step? To collect the means to act on his intent. Then people die. This person is a danger regardless of what stage of the game he is in. If you can catch one of these guys in the planning stage rather then then after the act itself, you can save countless lives.

BTW, intent is a crime, I doubt I have to list different crimes where this is applicable.

Intent is the years of planning before 9/11.

Intent is the thought in somebody's mind that maybe we should fill a raft with explosives and float it next to a naval warship.

Intent is some dumb kid, mad at the gov't, thinking about how he can blow up a federal building.

Intent is just the first stage in a deadly and destructive act.



The funny thing is how this argument is used.

Take Columbine. There was a lot of intent by two kids that you wouldn't think would have the means to carry out such an act. Guess what? They took that intent, formulated a plan and carried it out.

Now, who is in trouble?

The police for not acting on the known intent.


This is a double-standard argument. You (collective) criticize for not "protecting you" when there are clues to the intent. Then you criticize for acting progressively and going after people that have the intent.

Yes, intent is dangerous. People die when you think otherwise and the case history is on my side for this argument.

KMA-628

By the way, the Bond reference was a joke. A little levity.

roachboy

yes, and you'd be right, had i said that. in fact, said almost the opposite.
besides, it was mostly directed at mojo's post, which was immediately above mine. it didnt follow directly into the rest of the post.

totally disagree with you on the causes of "terrorism"--reverting to religious identity as a way to rationalize the political actions of organizations gets you no place. if you want to understand something about fundamentalism, you would probably have to look at instances like the f.i.s. in algeria, link it to other, subsequent movements--in nearly every case, you would find specific political grievances, caused by specific situations (which may or may not follow from american-style capitalism--since the question had to do with the states, i pitched my response that way--but at this level, it would not hold) translated into the language of fundamentalism for tactical reasons--later, things would shift, but you would have to argue the point in each case--and no matter which instance you chose to look at, the sequence would be political grievance (widely construed) mobilization, translation into a more religious type of language.

on the question of intent: it is really difficult to prove intent. it usually operates only as a post hoc rationalization for particular sequences of action. you cannot act on intent--you cannot arrest anyone because of what they might do, you cannot authorize an invasion based on possible problems in the future. the law does not work that way, national, international, etc. it simply does not.
that you would buy the bush administrations next-to-most-desperate line in rationalizing iraq is unfortunate. better to see what that line is in fact.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

hannukah harry

hey, nothing like take a snippet of my post to suit your purpose! (maybe you should work for the RNC!)my full quote...

intent is not the years planning 9/11. that's called "planning." intent is thought to do something. have you ever heard some one say "i intend to paint the kitchen this summer." but when do they have the paint? have they starting "planning" when and how and what color they're going to paint it? no, that'd be planning to paint it.

think about how many times someone has thought "god, i want to kill that bastard!" about someone that's really pissed them off. how many actually do it? should they be arrested for that thought? no.

if somebody intends to do something, watch them. when they start planning it and youknow they're gonna do it, then stop them (hopefully) before they go through with it. but you can't arrest someone for their thoughts, they may just decide 20 minutes later that it's not something they want to do.

once he starts to "collect the means to act on his intent" then get 'em. but not before, he hasn't done anything wrong.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

DJ Happy

As said by someone else in Politics, while Saddam was committing his mass murders and acts of genocide, the US did nothing. It took someone to threaten their oil supplies before they acted. If he'd just stuck to gassing Kurds he would've been fine.

Kuwait is hardly most of the Arabian peninsula. Anyway, as we all know, the Arabian peninsula has shitloads of oil that the US needs whereas Western Europe does not - possibly why they stayed out of WWII until they were directly attacked themselves but didn't bat an eyelid when it came time to kicking the crap out of Iraq twice?

It strikes me as ironic that people are defending the US policy of international meddling as it got a notorious despot like Saddam out of power when it was the policy of international meddling that put him in power in the first place.

I would have to agree with that. If you have a knife stuck in your leg, you don't just mop up the pus occurring as a result of it and then wonder why it keeps coming back. You remove the source - then the pus will disappear as well (not the most eloquent of analogies I know, but it's early and I'm tired). So back to the original thread question, I think a President could stop terrorism if he wanted to.

hannukah harry

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't saddam invade kuwait because they were slant drilling into saddams oil fields?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Lebell

Considering how little of our oil comes from Iraq/Kuwait, this is a spurious argument and always has been.

What is sad is that we had to jump through all these hoops in order to do something. It took someone as bad as Hussein and STILL countries like France, Germany and Russia protected him (of course, we know why now...billions of dollars in bribes and oil contracts).

We certainly can't get a UN mandate or support to do something about the mass genocide that goes on in Africa daily. Or when we do, we are looked at as "Imperialists".

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

DJ Happy

Yes, but imagine how much can come from there now? Anyway, the price of oil is as important to the US as the oil itself.

Saddam was protected by the US for long enough when it suited them too. For the US to accuse other countries of looking after their own interests first is yet more hypocrisy.

If you really want to do something about the genocide in Africa, then go it alone. Lack of international support didn't stop you in Iraq after all.

Lebell

Saudi Arabia pretty much controls the price of oil, which is one reason we are so friendly with them.

I wasn't "accusing", but pointing out that very same hypocrisy, which exhibited itself here and elsewhere as people lauded the "noble French, Germans" et.al. for opposing the war.

We already did, in Somalia. No one else gave a shit while the people there stopped butchering each other to attack us. Now they are back to butchering each other.

Also, I am getting DAMN tired of being called a hypocrite.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

DJ Happy

In any time of political turmoil, especially when involving OPEC member countries (such as when Iraq invades Kuwait), the influence Saudi or even OPEC as a whole has over the price of oil diminishes drastically. This has never been more clearly demonstrated than right now.

I don't see how Germany and France were being hypocritical. They may have questionable ethics, but I don't see any hypocrisy in their actions. Unless you can show me otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't remember calling you a hypocrite. Unless you are the US.

The US did not act alone in Somalia nor on their own initiative, and to say that "no-one else gave a shit" is doing a great injustice to the 20+ other countries who were part of that UN deployment. They were deployed after the UN asked for assistance from its members to be part of a UN peacekeeping force to protect the UN humanitarian mission there and to ensure that food aid reached the populace and did not fall into the hands of the warlords. In fact, it was widely suspected at the time that Bush the First only agreed to the deployment in order to create a problem for Bill Clinton, who had already been elected president and was due to take office a month later.

Anyway, we've drifted right off the topic of discussion, so I'll leave it there.

roachboy

let's talk about hypocrisy with reference to iraq.

during the reagan administration, because of the iran-iraq war, the americans sold iraq serious weapons systems, and said nothing about the gassing of the kurds because, at the time, the administration believed hussein's claim that the objective was military and that the kurds who died were, in a sense "collateral damage"
all this because iraq was, at the time, politically convenient.
iran was the problem. hostage crisis and all that. remember?

after hussein's invasion of kuwait (motivations aside), things changed.
but that for domestic political purposes, to sell the first gulf war.
the americans did not give a shit about the kurds at the time the gassing happened.
the americans did not give a shit about the kurds during the period when they were encouraged to organize resistance and then were left to be crushed after the first gulf war.
the americans do not give a shit about the kurds now.

on the annoying "noble france and germany" and its inverse "france and gemany: hyprocrites"---a pair of terms operational in rightwing land and nowhere else---the fact is that france and germany and a majority of the security council did not support bushwar because the administration made no compelling case for war at any particular time.
neither france nor germany has been a great hero of international pacifism; neither is run by a pacifist. the fact is that the bush administration fucked up--they presented a shabby, obviously false case the premises of which were undercut within minutes by the un inspectors reports. ever since that vote, the administration and its think tank apparatus have been blowing a smoke screen about that vote, trying anything and everything to divert attention from the fact of the matter: the americans had no case for war.

if there is hyprocrisy in all this, it clearly sits with the american right. not even with the americans in general (restricting myself here to talking about iraq--in the longer historical frame, there is plenty of blame to be shared by all factions within the american oligarchy)

back to the question at hand: an american president could in fact do something to diminish terrorism, whatever that is.
but this president cannot and will not.
the conclusion i have come to is: if you are concerned about fighting terrorism, then you pretty much have to oppose george w bush.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

Let me clarify something real quick regarding my definition of intent (that might be part of the confusion regarding my post).

To me, intent includes everything up to the action itself. I think planning is part of the intent. (i.e. I intend to go to the store. If I get in an accident on my way to the store and never make it, my original intent was to go to the store, regardless of where I ended up)

While I agree about thought crimes, I am referring to someone who "intends" to do something, hasn't done it yet, but has the desire. If your definition of intent only includes the thought, then my argument will not work for you. I believe, however, that intent includes a whole lot more then the thought itself.

hannukah harry - yes I did use part of your post but I understood the rest. I think that someone that wants to blow up a building has a probability of trying to find the means to do so. Using my definition of intent, the person is in a very dangerous stage, and if he can be stopped, then we should do so. Maijnly because I think intent involves more then just a hairbrained idea floating in somebody's mind.

BTW - To everybody that thinks intent is not a crime, look again. It is a crime, you can be arrested, tried, convicted and go to jail for intent. In our legal system, the definition of intent includes posing a threat (i.e. he didn't shoot me, but he intended to - ADW, etc.). Rather then go into every example, I am sure that everybody here is aware of the crimes in our country that involve intent. If, for some reason, you think intent is not a crime in the US, I will post more examples to further my point that intent is a crime and (by definition in our judicial system) is more then just a thought in somebody's head.

roachboy

a threat is an act in itself, and is prosecutable in itself.
it is an expression of an intent, yes--but to reverse expression of intent and intent itself is faulty logic.
you cant be prosecuted for intent, which is purely inward...that is why you can only go after someone who writes "i will burn down your house" but not after someone who sits on a log thinking the same thing.

at any event, there is no argument from or about intent that justifies the iraq war---the case was clear, it was based on nothing, now the right is foundering--this is one of the arguments they have come up with--and it is even weaker than the first rounds of arguments were.

obviously if part of the fight on terrorism, whatever that is, is teaching by example the respect for the rule of law, the bush administration is doing a fine fine job.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

roach -

I was referring to this part of your post. My point being that our foreign policy has not been consistent enough to flatly state that we do or do not do something in a specific time period. We have gone after regimes that could be considered politically convenient, but we also have gone after regimes that are ify on that category. Somalia would be one example. We went after a warlord that wasn't politically advantageous to us, strictly under the guise of a humanitarian cause. Guess what? It failed miserably and our soldiers got killed needlessly.

There are other examples, but I am sure you understand where I am coming from. I just think your statement was too over-generalized. On the flip-side, there are very few countries in this world where we don't have a political concern for some reason or another.

roachboy

kma--good that you pointed out what you were referring to--i did not get that part. sorry.

i would agree that my statement was too general--but for the cold war period, it is pretty accurate, sadly. and even now, it is more accurate than not. on the other hand, you could see somalia as an example of the problems that successive administrations have had since reagan in fashioning a general logic for american foreign policy...there seems to be a nostaligia for something like the cold war an the way it appeared to simplify the world. the bush squad seems to think that the "war on terror" whatever that is might function as a surrogate--but of course that is insane.

if you want to talk about people being killed needlessly, we could talk more about iraq...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

KMA-628

First off, let me go backwords: I think the President can stop terrorists but terrorism itself can not be stopped.

As far as Iraq, we have terrorists coming from all over the world to fight the best-trained soldiers in the world. Before we had to flush them out, now they are coming out voluntarily. While we still have a lot more to flush out, I am all for as many terrorists as possible coming to Iraq and turning themselves into targets. It is the first time that we have an actual battlefield with which to take on terrorists. People will die and innocents will be killed, I understand and accept this. Also, this is not a hypocritical notion on my part either as I have been in harm's way, voluntarily, a few times.

roach - while you and I will never agree, this is how I see it. To me it is not needless.

roachboy

kma--understood on the agreement part.
but remember that it is only after the fact that organizations fitting the bush description of "terrorist" are relevant at all in iraq--here again, the arguments for war were specious. the problem, i suppose, comes in whether you accept those arguments--i do not, never have, and so therefore everything that is happening in iraq seems to me needless. which is not the faultof the people getting shot/shot at--rather it is the fault of the present administration.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite