The failed war on Terror

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by ElWingador, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. ElWingador
    Offline

    ElWingador Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I thought this was a good article.

    http://www.progress.org/2005/eland31.htm

    by Ivan Eland
    August, 2005
    U.S. government officials, both politicians and career bureaucrats, always imply that a tradeoff exists between security and liberty and that we cannot have both. This view, however, depends on buying into key erroneous assumptions made by those same officials.
    The Bush administration’s high-octane “war on terror” has undertaken an active and highly publicized agenda domestically and overseas to rid the world of “evildoers.” Unfortunately, after the September 11 attacks, the American public would have been freer and safer, both at home and when traveling and doing business abroad, if the administration’s security bureaucracies had taken a long vacation. In short, the administration’s activism -- whether it be for ulterior motives, as in the invasion of Iraq, or to win public relations points with voters -- ensures that Americans will see both their security and liberty eroded.

    The administration’s strategy in the war on terror has been that the “best defense is a good offense.” Both domestically and overseas, this strategy involves casting a wide net in the quest for enemies. Abroad, instead of focusing finite government resources and attention on neutralizing al Qaeda, the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to threaten the nations of a make-believe “axis of evil,” invade one of them, and topple its leader, who had nothing to do with those attacks. In addition to the deaths of almost 2,000 U.S. forces and many more innocent Iraqis, the resulting quagmire in Iraq has acted both as a motivator and training ground for the swelling number of anti-U.S. jihadists worldwide, which hardly increases the security of Americans anywhere.

    Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations. Most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s profligate meddling in the affairs of those countries after World War II.

    Poll after poll in Islamic countries indicate that their people admire U.S. freedoms -— both political and economic —- wealth, technology, and even culture, but hate U.S. foreign policy toward Islamic nations. In particular, by their own statements and writings, Islamist jihadists, such as Osama bin Laden, hate the United States for its military presence on Islamic lands and for its support of corrupt Arab governments and Israel.

    After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world, the administration should have pursued al Qaeda more aggressively and quietly and avoided occupying Islamic soil (Afghanistan and Iraq)—a lightning rod to the jihadists. For the long-term, the Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy, as President Bush had promised during his first campaign in 2000.

    At home, the administration has also acted offensively, supporting the draconian Patriot Act -- and now its renewal -- that has increased police powers across the board, rather than being confined to terrorism cases. Also, a military command was created that has just developed war plans to use within the borders of the United States. The plans apparently include secret scenarios being kept from the American public that would likely further militarize law enforcement and would seem to involve the imposition of martial law.

    It is questionable whether these measures will actually either stop or increase the government’s ability to respond to a terrorist attack. What is less questionable is whether these constrictions of liberty -- the foundation of our nation -- would have been needed or enacted if the United States wasn’t rampaging around the world tilting at imagined security threats and stirring the hornets’ nest in the process.

    Yet instead of toning down U.S. foreign policy and shrinking the bull’s eye painted on back of the American public, the administration has tried to assuage the public’s fears of losing their liberties by creating the toothless President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties, a panel with few resources, no enforcement clout, and little presidential enthusiasm or backing. Even such window dressing to cover the needless loss of liberties would be unnecessary if the United States got rid of its outdated interventionist foreign policy, which is a relic of the Cold War.

    --------------------
     
  2. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    tis interesting.....

    how exactly are these two things done?

    Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations. Most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s profligate meddling in the affairs of those countries after World War II.

    well among other things this means do not support israel and when iraq invaded kuwait don't help kuwait .... fine by me

    After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world, the administration should have pursued al Qaeda more aggressively and quietly and avoided occupying Islamic soil (Afghanistan and Iraq)—a lightning rod to the jihadists. For the long-term, the Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy, as President Bush had promised during his first campaign in 2000.

    so how exactly do you persue people on forigen soil without going onto that soil ..... oh yea you ask the arab countries to capture arab terrorists funded by them and ask them to turn them over to you.....
     
  3. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
    I'm sure they think it would have worked...as long as we said "Please."
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    maybe the world court's police force can go arrest them.
     
  5. USMCDevilDog
    Offline

    USMCDevilDog Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    412
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Alexandria, Virginia
    Ratings:
    +42
    Exactly, why do they all think we could have just stopped it all from happening if we just talked to them? I know that Osama still did the attacks even after we had talked to him, so, talking with people who absolutely hate America ain't gonna do shit.

    It is a good article though, nicely written to just make more people not like our country.
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Oh :bsflag: yea have to say "Pretty Please" followed with $$$$$$$. :)
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    This thread should have been more appropriately named "failed return by Funk".

    This retard has been banned at least a dozen or so times so far. Someone needs phsychiatric assistance.

    :banned:
     
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Crap, another playmate bites the dust! ;)
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    i think they really belive that if we stop supporting israel and take the first step towards giving them back all that they belive is theirs (just as israel has done on the west bank and gaza) and remove all of our troops from SA and UAB then they will not be aggressive towards us or anyone else.

    but until you actually do it they will always say that it would work.
     
  10. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    We are simply irresistable.
     

Share This Page