Political ramifications of London bombings

[Brinn]

...Sorry,,I can not give any validation to any arguement based on what the current Admin is spinning. They lied from the very start. Their effort in Iraq is based on Lies. Anything spun into the future is still based on lies.
...Isolationism?,,nice try...what has getting off the oil teet to do with isolationism?...Hey,,if the Iraq'iis decided to buy vehicles that got 50 miles to a liter,or didn't run on gasoline at all i'm sure we'd sell it to them as well as anybody else...AIDS?..Humvees with machine guns and Bradley tanks and F15, F18's and AAH with hellfire missles,,all killing machines, bringers of death, you remember the sprint to Baghdad?,,have got exactly what to do with AIDS?..Stay focused now , Apples to Apples. If you are saying our presense in Iraq is like an infestation of AIDS on the populace,,i can say I see your analogy.
...Why stop at Darfur? I mean, c'mon..we got Uganda,,we got Rhwanda,,Congo,,stand up and take a bow Congo..then there is still Somali land up there,,and lets not forget the anniversery being observed as i type..the mass execution of Muslim men in Bosnia,,Scerbeneicsia(spl),,yea,, the ring leaders of that dance of death are still roaming around free!! wwweeeeeeee! how about the millions in Cambodia as the world stood by,,etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...and oh, etc etcetc etc etc etc. Whats your point?..Something we did learn from the Vietnam experience that apparently has to be re-learned,,,all over again..if the folks are not willing to make the changes themselves,,even with a little CIA help,,then the chances remain pretty low that they'll get behind you when you show up with tanks and artillery.

The situation before the war was bullsh*t. It was being practiced by both sides. Unfortunately,,one of the sides had made up their mind at least 2 years before...and went before the UN with a Power Point presentation of Pure Horse Crap....

..The containment had the effect of dividing Iraq into 3 zones. Where are we today..3 zones...millions more hating Americans, thousands more willing to die in the struggle against the Great Satan...I can't wait to compare notes a few years from now. I see no reason that 3 partys who have been at each others throats for centurys,,will all of a sudden come together. They take after their environment. Their alliances and allegiances shift as fast as the desert sands they live in. Strong arm men like Saddam may well be the only way to control the population or,,re-align the borders ( gerry-mander) the situation so they don't deal with each other. Thats the only hope I have for the Iraqii nation. Amazingly enough..the lower half of Iraq use to be Kuwaitii,,but I believe after the 1 st WW.. some genius gave it the northern Sunni's . The experiment failed....MEL

Your posts are becoming less focused, more tangental, and more muddled. You failed to acknowledge, much less address, the facts that I presented in my previous post. If statements such as "...Sorry,,I can not give any validation to any arguement based on what the current Admin is spinning. They lied from the very start. Their effort in Iraq is based on Lies. Anything spun into the future is still based on lies." or "The situation before the war was bullsh*t." counts as reasoned rebuttal than I fear we have reached an impasse as you refuse to engage in intellectual discourse. Would you like to stand with your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you!!" over and over again as well? Regardless, I will shortly attempt to analyze your post and, once again, engage you in a reasoned debate by responding in a clear, direct and thoughtful manner. I would hope you would pay me the same courtesy.

[Avatar]

It's always a pleasure to see you come out fighting Brinn, even, (perhaps especially), when I disagree with you to some extent.

In all seriousness, are you advocating isolationism? Because if you are I don't think that's going to improve our image much. I assume your stance on Darfur was much the same as that of pre-war Iraq...that is, if they can't solve it themselves let them die. **Edit: After reading the excellent topic on AIDS in Africa I would ask you if they should be solving their problems themselves as well. After all they have little consequence to the US and our economy save for the massive expense that aid costs. End Edit**

I hope you read my last post in that topic about Africa. In a sense, I think that "isolationism" (The Munroe Doctrine, wasn't it?) would perhaps not be that bad for the American image, for a couple of reasons:

If you're going to (and I use this word hesitantly, but with no ill intent) "meddle" "positively" in the affairs of other countries, whether by granting aid, coming to their defense, or whatever, you cannot win. It's as simple as that. It's the fable about the man and the donkey, where you can't please everybody all of the time. Give one country aid, and the rest clamour for it.

(I'm not entirely sure that aid is a good thing in the first place though. Give something to somebody, and he doesn't necessarily appreciate it, and even when he does, as in all political circles, the gratitude is short-lived. Cancelling the debt, that's fine. Just giving them money, (a lot of which doesn't get given anyway, and of what does, most of which makes no difference to the people who actually need it.) When they don't get it, (because just how much can you give anyway?) it's another dent in the Image.

On the other hand, "meddle" "negatively," with whatever intentions, you're gonna have a similar problem: The people who agree will say, but then why the hell aren't you doing it "over there" as well as "here". And the ones who don't will say, "where the hell do you get off meddling in the first place?"

Isolation would generate it's own detractors, accusations of doing nothing while the world suffered, but at least you're in less of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

And as for letting everybody who can't solve their own problems die, well callous as it may be, I'm not always convinced that it would be a bad idea. It is, after all, the way of nature, of the world. It's the way life works. Prosper, thrive, and reproduce, or die. It really is that simple, and it is our rarified notions of morality, decency, and perhaps even a sense of selfish self-aggrandisement that keeps us trying to stop it.

When I say unsustainable I mean it was a failing policy operationally, not that it was economically unsustainable. I'll keep it simple: Containment as a policy had some specific goals such as keeping WMD out of Iraqi hands. The only thing keeping the inspectors in Iraq was military pressure from the US which involved much more than a few fly overs from an F-14...The other part of the equation is that containment was a policy that had no end-game and no expiration date. Saddam had firm control over the apparatus of the state, was in reasonable health, and had familial successors to assume the reins upon his demise. If the costs of containment are even only $2B per year it still is extremely expensive when you project it forward ad infinitum.

OK, although I see how you're saying that, if they had wanted, the government could have sustained the (containment?) policy indefinitley, albeit for an economic price, but "operationally" unsustainable? How so? Are you saying that the policy was failing? That it wasn't keeping WMD's out of Iraqi hands?

On the other hand, Regime change was a policy that would provide a desireable outcome (hopefully representative government), have a greater effect on the ME as a whole by providing a working template for other nations, and would have a foreseeable endgame. It may be a long process but, unlike containment, the war will not go indefinitely.

Regime change. See, that's where my problem comes in. "We don't like that Regime. So we'll go and change it for one we do like." What gives us, any of us, the right? Who the hell are we to say what must and must not happen? What makes our idea, our way, so much better that we must make sure that everybody follows it? Nothing. We can talk about the human rights issues, we can talk about the tragedy. Life is tragic, it is unfair, and it is up to people to make their own difference. But we have no divine mandate to bring the light to the poor heathens. As I said earlier, what is given to people, is not appreciated. What they make for themselves, on the other hand, is.

My own country is a perfect example. There was no democracy, no representative government in this country for a very long time. But the people who were committed to the idea made it happen. It took a long time, and they endured many hardships, deprivations, cruelties and deaths. But they endured, and enduring, built up the motivation and the dedication to change it, to bring about the dream that they had for themselves, for everybody in the country.

And the change was peaceful, it was (and is) slowed and hindered by obstacles ranging from old prejudices, to the corruption and greed of those become jaded by victory, but it continues, and will do so.

This war that you mention Brinn, I very much fear that it will go on indefinitely. There is no way to stop it. The UK bombings have led to over 100 "revenge" attacks against muslims in the UK, and Pakistani's in particular, with one man even being beaten to death. Many Pakistani-descended or originated british citizens are contemplating leaving the UK, and returning. Those children who had stones thrown at them because they were muslims, they're potentially the next generation of terrorists. And so it goes on.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchet, The warcry that echoes through the ages is "Remember the atrocity you committed against us, which excuses the atrocity we're going to commit against you."

--Avatar

[Menolly]

What do y'all think of Alan Dershowitz's POV?

Why Terrorism Works
By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 8, 2005

Within a day of the horrific multiple bombings in London, the G8 announced a $3B grant to the Palestinian Authority. The symbolism of this connection may be lost on some Westerners, but it clearly sent a powerful message to terrorists and potential terrorists: namely, that terrorism works.

There were no grants announced to the Tibetans, who have been occupied more brutally and for a longer period of time than the Palestinians. The Tibetans, however, have never resorted to terrorism.

The Palestinian Authority, and its leaders, are the godfathers of international terrorism. They developed airplane hijacking into a high art. They invented the high-profile murder of athletes and other prominent public figures. Were it not for their employment of terrorism, the Palestinian cause would today be regarded as the fifth-rate human rights issue that it rightfully is. But because the Palestinian leadership has always used terrorism (from the 1920's on) as the tactic of first resort, their cause has received worldwide recognition.

The primary cause of terrorism is not occupation, humiliation, or desperation. If it were, the Tibetans would be the greatest terrorists. The primary cause of terrorism is that it works. And it works because the craven international community gives into it and rewards it. It also works because too many Islamic leaders praise it and too few condemn it. Terrorism will continue as long as potential terrorists believe they will benefit from using that tactic.

[[Syl]]

Technically he's right, but this isn't the 90's any more. The PA is recognized internationally now, and that's just the way it is. Sucks (imo), but it's not exactly the sign of caving into terrorists that he's portraying it to be (and I'm about as anti-PA as they get).

[Avatar]

Damn, I hope Brinn hasn't abandoned this topic just because it's moved to the 'Tank.

Poor bloody Tibetans.

Why the anti-PA stance Syl, (if I may ask)?

--A

[[Syl]]

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you... and everyone else who ever read this thread.

Too much work. I'll just see if I can find some old threads. Kins and I had a pretty good debate on it way back when.

Looking over my posts, I couldn't find any that addressed my specific reasons for not liking the PA. In no particular order, they are:

- A cowardly refusal or pathetic claim to impotence in dealing harshly with terrorist groups.
- Failure to live up to their end of the Oslo Occords while crying to the world that Israel fails to meet their end
- Dragging their feet on the issue of removing the call for the destruction of Israel from their Charter
- Portraying Israel as child/old women/puppy killers without mention of how Palestinian irresponsibility lead to the aforementioned people being involved in the situation (if you take your 8 year-old kid to throw stones at the cops, maybe it's your fault he got killed by a rubber bullet to the temple)
- Constantly lying (claims not to support terrorists, yet ship's are caught smuggling weapons with PA marks all over the manifest)
- Yasser Arafat (the world is a better place)

Anything else would be historical, and as that would be dealing with Palestinians as a whole or the PLO vice the PA, not exactly relevant to this conversation.

[Avatar]

Thanks for the reply. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter myself, never having given it much study, but you make some interesting points.

In principle though, you seem to have (or do not mention at least) no objection to the idea of a "Palestine" as it were, just the way that people are going about it.

--A

[Plissken]

Of course, just about everything on this list could be rewritten with Israel as the bad guy... Except, of course, the ones where the discrepancy in the power balance is too big a factor to rephrase...

- A cowardly refusal or pathetic claim to impotence in dealing harshly with terrorist groups.
- Failure to live up to their end of the Oslo Occords while crying to the world that Israel fails to meet their end
- Dragging their feet on the issue of removing the call for the destruction of Israel from their Charter
- Portraying Israel as child/old women/puppy killers without mention of how Palestinian irresponsibility lead to the aforementioned people being involved in the situation (if you take your 8 year-old kid to throw stones at the cops, maybe it's your fault he got killed by a rubber bullet to the temple)
- Constantly lying (claims not to support terrorists, yet ship's are caught smuggling weapons with PA marks all over the manifest)
- Yasser Arafat (the world is a better place)

Anything else would be historical, and as that would be dealing with Palestinians as a whole or the PLO vice the PA, not exactly relevant to this conversation.

[Lord Mhoram]

I pose a question: Do you think it is true that it is only a matter of time before suicide bombings hit the U.S.? Never in history, I don't believe, have we had such a thing on our soil before. I think we are succeptible to such a thing - the only real defense against suicide bombings is intelligence.

[[Syl]]

Thanks, Mhoram. I was looking for somewhere to throw this link.

Iraq is now a terrorist training ground, CIA says Wed Jun 22, 2:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Wednesday.

[Lord Mhoram]

Syl,

All I can say is: Oh, fuck.

edit: Since when does the Watch * out swears?

[[Syl]]

Just f***, I think.

[Avatar]

As far as I know, it's fairly recent. Last few months, not much more. (I take the fact that you didn't notice as a testimony to the infrequency with which you swear. )

Interesting article Syl, if not much of a surprise.

--A

[sindatur]

Speaking of messing with the government in Saudi Arabia is insane. We currently have the support of the Royal family in Saudi Arabia. They are walking a very fine line. If that government was to be dissolved/destroyed, there would 10s of millions of Bin Ladens, Zarqawis, what have you to take their place. Saudi Arabia contains the most holy place in all of Islam. And the religion of choice in Saudi Arabia is Wahabism, one of the most extreme fundamentlist Islam versions. The results we see from Iraq are a drop in the bucket compared to what we could count on if we tried "Nation Building" in Saudi Arabia.

We need to seal the borders in Iraq, to stop any new growth from entering, wins the hearts and minds of the people in the street, to turn against the issurection. We need to convince these people of our intentions to clean up our mess, and get out and let them get on with their lives. And then give whatever support we can to the fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and let the snowball grow on it's own to spread the Democracy. This war will never be won with sheer force. The harder we attack and still look like the bad guy, the more fierce the resistance will be. Yes, we need to kill and capture all the bad men, but we must understand the "people's mindset" and do it in such a way they are supportive of the change, not in a way that causes them to support those we are fighting against.

We are trying too aggressively, too quickly to bring about too big a change, and it's having the effect of producing solidarity for the Terrorists we're trying to rid the world of.

Understand them, understand the reaction to our actions. I'm not suggesting trying to reason with, negotiate or any other placating of Bin Laden and the Terrorists, I'm talking about Joe IRaqi and Joe Iranian, etc. The terrorists that already exist can't be reasoned with or negotiated with, but, we stop the replacements of them by reasoning with the common man. Showing them why we're better and our way is better. Torture, what good is it? If they were potential suicide bombers, and we tortured them for 1 hour, and got nothing, how can we expect another 6 months of torture will have any effect? If torture doesn't do it almost immediately, it never will.

Attacking their Holy Land, sure as heck is not the right way to go.

Edit: I'm not even sure dropping a Nuke on Tehran would be more dangerous.

[Avatar]

I pretty much agree with you on every count there Sindatur. In terms of what you're saying though, the first practical difficulty I can spot is te question of sealing the borders. Iraq has approximately 3,500 kilometeres of border, much of it in the desert. To totally prevent anybody from sneaking across it somewhere is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

--A

[sindatur]

the first practical difficulty I can spot is the question of sealing the borders. Iraq has approximately 3,500 kilometeres of border, much of it in the desert. To totally prevent anybody from sneaking across it somewhere is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

--A

I agree, but, it's no less impossible to keep trying to bail water out of a boat with a teaspoon, when you have a fountain rushing through a hole in the bottom of the boat. This is why it's so important, in my mind to gain the hearts and minds and trust of "The man in the street". The border villages' populations need to help seal those borders. If you don't stop replacements from flooding in like a tidal wave, nothing will change, except the intensity of the violence (on both sides) will increase.

[[Syl]]

You can't seal any border, but you can make it non-porous. It just takes regular patrols. The Bush administration was advised by several intelligence agencies to do just that. They didn't. Now Iraq has an influx of foreign extremists.

[sindatur]

Seal, make it non-porous, whatever terminology you choose, same thing, stop fresh recruits from joining the Jihad.

This was another one of Colin Powell's advises that the Administration ignored, and still today, after the Administration has said replacements are flooding in from various Countries, they still are doing almost nothing about it.

[Menolly]

Not a political ramification but this sounds like an excellent idea to me!

ICE - In Case of Emergency

A campaign encouraging people to enter an emergency contact number in their mobile phone's memory under the heading "ICE" (i.e. In Case of Emergency), has rapidly spread throughout the world as a particular consequence of last week's terrorist attacks in London.

Originally established as a nation-wide campaign in the UK, ICE allows paramedics or police to be able to contact a designated relative/next-of-kin in an emergency situation.

The idea is the brainchild of East Anglican Ambulance Service paramedic Bob Brotchie and was launched in May this year. Bob, 41, who has been a paramedic for 13 years, said: "I was reflecting on some of the calls I've attended at the roadside where I had to look through the mobile phone contacts struggling for information on a shocked or injured person.

Almost everyone carries a mobile phone now, and with ICE we'd know immediately who to contact and what number to ring. The person may even know of their medical history."

By adopting the ICE advice, your mobile will help the rescue services quickly contact a friend or relative - which could be vital in a life or death situation. It only takes a few seconds to do, and it could easily help save your life. Why not put ICE in your phone now? Simply select a new contact in your phone book, enter the word 'ICE' and the number of the person you wish to be contacted.

Further reading from another email.

Subject: ICE
Following the disaster in London . . .

East Anglican Ambulance Service have launched a national "In case of Emergency (ICE)" campaign with the support of Falklands war hero Simon Weston.

The idea is that you store the word "I C E" in your mobile phone address book, and against it enter the number of the person you would want to be contacted "In Case of Emergency".

In an emergency situation ambulance and hospital staff will then be able to quickly find out who your next of kin are and be able to contact them.

It's so simple that everyone can do it. Please do.

It really could save your life, or put a loved one's mind at rest.

For more than one contact name ICE1, ICE2, ICE3 etc."

[Menolly]

Oy!

ABC News is reporting more transportaion issues in London. I hope all London Watch members report in!