You seem to believe that terrorists blowing things up in Baghdad is somehow damaging to US interests. I don't grant you that premise. Terrorists blowing thigns up "over there" is not really something I worry about. Terrorists blowing things up over here, however does. And that's not happening.

these event into Badhdad could (probably will) lead to a full-fledged civil war, and when the dust settles, I doubt seriously anyone will love America for it's "good job".

They will hate you. Not just their elite, but the whole population. This hate will propagate into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries..

You said that is was in the US interest to topple an open ennemy of the US. You simply created a lot more of them. That is against the US interest. You set back the problem for about 10 years, but you multiplied it by 20.

Explain how? What US interests have been attacked since the invasion of Iraq? Any at all?

The US's image in the world is at its lowest since a century. Maybe ever. People around the world trust you lesser than ever. America is less and less a popular tourism destination (that's still an economical loss). Allies are less sure about trusting you, while we would have fought to the gates of hell beside you after 9/11 (and Canadians still are in afganistan, taking the bulk of the losses). the Iraqi invasion changed that.

I don't know about you, but I think a nation's image is really important to it's interests.

Point me 1 event in the world's history, where there was an effective military solution to terrorism. Just 1.

The only solution is to wipe out all living terrorist or let them win. The problem you have with Radical Islamist is that they know when they have lost but they don't know how to win. Israel gave its terrorist 90% of what they asked for and it was turned down twice in 4 years. Making Mr. Clinton look like a fool. The 10% that Israel did not give them was the death of all Jews. I tell you them Jews are so selfish.

I don't know about you, but I think a nation's image is really important to it's interests.

I don't know about you, but I think being alive is better than being dead. The last time America worried about how we were viewed in the world got us into Vietnam so go for what you know.

Instead of making stuff up why don't you ASK people from other countries why America is hated so much?

I don't personally hate Americans but I do hate the American government or more specifically Bush. My reason, and the reasons of other people who I know that feel the same way do not even closely resemble your reasons. In fact they more closely resemble the reasons I hate my OWN government.

Most intelligent people realise that the American people don't necessarily reflect the government's views and that they often feel as cheesed off by there lies as we do.

P.S. Did you ever think that other countries just think that a neutral facial expression might be easier to identify? Hmmm, it just might be...

P.P.S. I'm Australian

The only solution is to wipe out all living terrorist or let them win.

Same question, repeated once more: have you seen once, just ONCE, a situation where total wipe of terrorists was successful, leading to the end of this peticular conflict? A viable military solution that worked?

What leads to the state of "terrorism" from a population is if their antagonist is so ubermore powerful than they are. IRA vs U.K. jumps to mind.

However, IRA haven't disarmed because the U.K. army smashed it so hard they changed mind.

Instead of making stuff up why don't you ASK people from other countries why America is hated so much?

so many answers from so many different peoples America is the world's easiest nation to hate right now (moslty unjustified).

Israel gave its terrorist 90% of what they asked for and it was turned down twice in 4 years. Making Mr. Clinton look like a fool. The 10% that Israel did not give them was the death of all Jews. I tell you them Jews are so selfish.

I would like to see the list of consessions that were agreed on Israel's part before any further comments

Instead of making stuff up why don't you ASK people from other countries why America is hated so much?

That is what the forum is for my friend. Please give us your reasons.

Same question, repeated once more: have you seen once, just ONCE, a situation where total wipe of terrorists was successful, leading to the end of this peticular conflict? A viable military solution that worked?

English/ Irish conflict comes to mind.

All the other instances the nation gave up and lost allowing the to terrorist win.

Israel keeps knocking them down but people outside the conflict keep rearming them. Isreal started off as terrorist and they won because the other side (England) gave up.

Americans were called terrorist by the Brits we won because they gave up.

History shows us that terrorism always wins because the other side gives up.

England did not give in with the Irish and they are now at the stage where they are talking to each other, disbanded the militay wing for the most part and stopped terrorist acts.

I have now given you instances on both sides. To win against terror you have to wipe them out or bring thier numbers down to the point that they feel their cause is not worth the price of terror.

The black panthers in the 60's tried to become a terror orginazation but were infiltrated and torn apart before they could get moving. We did not have that option because of Congress and their short sighted political view of the world.

What leads to the state of "terrorism" from a population is if their antagonist is so ubermore powerful than they are. IRA vs U.K. jumps to mind. However, IRA haven't disarmed because the U.K. army smashed it so hard they changed mind.

Right, peace and love caused them to give up.

I would like to see the list of consessions that were agreed on Israel's part before any further comments

I love how people act so well informed yet don't remember news broadcast that don't agree with their point of view.

Here is a piece of a news article you can find the rest yourself.

July 11-26, 2000

President Clinton hosts Israeli leader Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David in the hope of reaching a peace agreement. After two weeks of unsuccessful talks, the summit breaks up with no agreement.

love how people act so well informed yet don't remember news broadcast that don't agree with their point of view

Well, considering the fact that in year 2000, I was barely 14 years old and more interested in girls in my school than foreign policies (when I think of it, I still am), I hope to make up for what I missed in the meantime.

he black panthers in the 60's tried to become a terror orginazation but were infiltrated and torn apart before they could get moving. We did not have that option because of Congress and their short sighted political view of the world.

I though the black population stopped supporting this movement when they were finally allowed the same rights than the white? no military win.

English/ Irish conflict comes to mind.

It hasn't stopped because the English beated them. It stopped because the Irish population stopped receiving funding from Americans, so it became a better option to sit and talk rather than fight. no military win.

I have now given you instances on both sides. To win against terror you have to wipe them out or bring thier numbers down to the point that they feel their cause is not worth the price of terror.

Again, I haven't see one example where the military solution won at the end. You have to beat them down economicly, or for the public support.

Here is a piece of a news article you can find the rest yourself. July 11-26, 2000 President Clinton hosts Israeli leader Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David in the hope of reaching a peace agreement. After two weeks of unsuccessful talks, the summit breaks up with no agreement.

great, now can you give me the link? I doesn't say what Israel agreed on in the first place

Ever heard of the Hydra? Point me 1 event in the world's history, where there was an effective military solution to terrorism. Just 1. Terrorism will never stop because of military actions.

The current war on terror would rise as one example.  # of attacks against US since 9/11: 0.

The bombing of Libya is the mid 80s would be another.  Put a stop to their terrorism.

That's two off the top of my head. Depending on how you want to define terrorism there are plenty of examples that go way back.

Terrorism, however, is a tactic, not something you can "solve".  It's like saying there should be a solution to crime or a solution to poverty. There aren't solutions. They are problems that can only be managed or reduced.

There is a difference between 40% approval rating and 10%. You will win peace when you will win the Arab and Persian street. And there are more ways to do that than to adopt an Islamic theocratic rule. You said in another post that "what Islamic Nations should do is....", why would they care about what you want if you don't care about what they want? What is their interest of doing America's bidding, if America simply screw them with its policies?

Why should they care what we want? Because we have the power to annihilate all of them if we choose to.

And I realize you're young and don't know much on history yet but you really should read up on the history of the United States -- disproportional response is part of the American character.

The Islamic nations SHOULD restrain their radical elements in order to prevent those elements from doing something that would result in retaliation that would reslut in the deaths of millions of people in the Islamic world.

In December of 1941, the Japanese bombed a US military base on a US territory (not even a state).  5 years later, the United States had killed over a million Japanese civilians in firing bombing and atomic bombs.

The US doesn't have to win the "Arab Street" for victory. There are many paths to victory and defeat. Hopefully a path can be found that ends with the least amount of bloodshed.

these event into Badhdad could (probably will) lead to a full-fledged civil war, and when the dust settles, I doubt seriously anyone will love America for it's "good job". They will hate you. Not just their elite, but the whole population. This hate will propagate into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries.. You said that is was in the US interest to topple an open ennemy of the US. You simply created a lot more of them. That is against the US interest. You set back the problem for about 10 years, but you multiplied it by 20.

Sigh. (rubs forehead).

Look: Victory is not defined by the US being liked by the Islamic world.  You seem to think it matters whether they "hate" us.

There have been huge swaths of humanity who have had more justification to hate the United States than the Islamic world.  But so what?

If you are going to quote me, try to understand the entire context: It is against US interests to have open enemies with significant capabilities.  That is why it matters little whether Islamic extremists in Africa hate us but does matter if the Mullahs in Iran hate us.

But it matters a LOT more how we feel about them.

Quit looking at this as an emotional argument and think with your head.  Who matters more is based on capability.  The US has far more capability than the entire Islamic world combined because we have the power to annihilate them and they do not have the power to do so in return and that is not likely to change any time soon.

Therefore, the leaders of those countries have more reason to care whether we hate them.

As a practical matter, the United States hasn't overthrown Syria and Iran because the American population does not sufficiently support that yet.  But that could change depending on what happens over there.

The US's image in the world is at its lowest since a century. Maybe ever. People around the world trust you lesser than ever. America is less and less a popular tourism destination (that's still an economical loss). Allies are less sure about trusting you, while we would have fought to the gates of hell beside you after 9/11 (and Canadians still are in afganistan, taking the bulk of the losses). the Iraqi invasion changed that.

I'm not sure there's anything correct in your paragraph.

Let's address each incorrect point:

1) US popularity in the world at large was lower in the 1960s and certainly during the early 1970s than it is today. Communist countries, and large %'s of their population, considered the United States its enemy.

2) US tourism grew last year by 12%.  The growth is slower than it should be according to the US commerce department for reasons ranging from a rise of anti-Americanism and fear of terrorism affecting travel. But the US's lower rate of growth than projected started back in 1992 so anti-Americanism is probably not a significant issue.  A rise is still a rise.

3) After 9/11 very few countries actually stepped forward to really help in a meaningful way. I don't recall seeing divisions of Germans or Canadians in Afghanistan. Instead, we got a very small trickle. Compare that to the 50 years the United States risked its actual existence by stationing over a half million troops in Western Europe during the cold war. Talk about fair weather friends.

The main problem with your paragraph is that it lacks what we call, a point. What exactly is the consequences to the US? Is there some tangible benefit to having Europe like us that I should be aware of?

Is there some reason we should, you know, care about countries who object to us overthrowing a ruthless dictator like Saddam?

I don't personally hate Americans but I do hate the American government or more specifically Bush. My reason, and the reasons of other people who I know that feel the same way do not even closely resemble your reasons. In fact they more closely resemble the reasons I hate my OWN government. Most intelligent people realise that the American people don't necessarily reflect the government's views and that they often feel as cheesed off by there lies as we do.

I notice that you don't actually provide any of these so-called reasons.  Do you have any reasons that reflect a rational thought or is all from your spleen?

US actions in post 9/11: Built a coalition and overthrew a blood thirsty dictator who had invaded 2 of his neighbors in a bit over a decade and had tortured and killed thousands of his own citizens. Then proceeded to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to help rebuild the country beyond where it was when th eUS invaded (water treatment plants, new power plants, new schools, new hospitals).

Yea, that Bush really is a bastard.

Again, I haven't see one example where the military solution won at the end. You have to beat them down economicly, or for the public support.

By your line of.."thinking" we should give up on having police too.  I mean, when has police work ever eliminated crime? They keep arresting people and there's still crime.

Did you really think through your question? Terrorism is a tactic. You can disrupt it or eliminate sources of it, but you can't ever totally eliminate it any more than you can totally eliminate crime.

I would like to see the list of consessions that were agreed on Israel's part before any further comments

The Internet is your friend. Look it up.  This is pretty cmmon knowledge stuff.  This is a political debate, not a junior high class room.

 

They will hate you. Not just their elite, but the whole population

The US's image in the world is at its lowest since a century

We don't care. Why should we?

The only solution is to wipe out all living terrorist or let them win. Same question, repeated once more: have you seen once, just ONCE, a situation where total wipe of terrorists was successful, leading to the end of this particular conflict? A viable military solution that worked?

And just "when" was the last time where you saw a country wipe out an entire bunch of terrorists? I can tell you. NEVER! Because it's never been tried or done. I take that back...it's been tried. English/Irish. And just why was it not successful? Because the Brits were unwilling to do what was necessary to wipe them out.

And just "when" was the last time where you saw a country wipe out an entire bunch of terrorists? I can tell you. NEVER! Because it's never been tried or done. I take that back...it's been tried. English/Irish. And just why was it not successful? Because the Brits were unwilling to do what was necessary to wipe them out.

because it's plain impossible, either on capability or politicaly

because it's plain impossible, either on capability or politicaly

--cikomyr

I do agree here, but what choice do we have? If we keep killing them and killing them, we keep them at bay and from getting to us here at home.
Also, and this is just wishful thinking, it may be that one day they'd run out of willing recruits. They'd have to start forcibly drafting, the way the South Vietnamese did, and that would likely be the end of them. Just like the South Vietnamese.

because it's plain impossible, either on capability or politicaly

No it isn't! Can you spell "nuclear missles"?

Well, considering the fact that in year 2000, I was barely 14 years old and more interested in girls in my school than foreign policies (when I think of it, I still am), I hope to make up for what I missed in the meantime.

I can understand that! I am 51 with a 39 year old son so I know exactly what your talking about. My dear mom made me watch the news, read news papers without fail every day, I still found time to er a you know.

I notice that you don't actually provide any of these so-called reasons. Do you have any reasons that reflect a rational thought or is all from your spleen?

I didn't give my reasons simply because that wasn't the point of my reply. Paladin was parroting the same dumb reasons that Bush reckcons are the same reasons terrorist attack the US for.

To keep you happy though here is a short list of reasons:

1. The war in Iraq. My thoughts on WHY I think is a bad thing are quite complicated and I don't want to write an essay at the moment. My reasons in short: a) It is nice to say in theory that they are better with Saddam gone. However I think the basic instability caused by the tension between ethnic groups and terrorist groups will mean instability for years. Will the benefits balance out the chaos caused by the war? I don't know, but I don't have a good feeling. I think a countries has to fight for its own democracy in the same way it is better to "teacher a man to fish" etc. etc.

The reasons given for going to war. WMDs turned out to be a bust, there is no stong evidence to support Saddam being involved with 9/11. Regime change may be valid but it seems unlikely to be the true reason since there are other regimes that are just as bad that they are doing nothing about.

2. Not leading the way with environmental reform (goes for my government too). The Kyoto protocol situation is only part of it but a big part of it. The reasoning given such as "well China isn't a part of it so we won't either" is stupid. China may be heading towards being one of the largest polluters but they DIDN'T CAUSE THE PROBLEM. The US uses 25% of the worlds fossils fuels and should take some responsibility for it (as we all should). If the US gov wants other countries to do the same thing they have to realise that they can't expect others to do what they aren't prepared to. The US does set the standard as a super-power whether we like it or not.

3. Hypocritical stance on nuclear weapons.

4. Keeping people in Gitmo for years without trial or even charges. I don't care if these people did do what they what they supposedly did, they should still get trials. Especially since the US wouldn't stand for the same thing happening to one of their citizens in another country. I hate my government for sitting back a letting one of our citizen being treated this way. Especially since other countries have fought and got just treatment for there citizens.

5. Acting like you can fight a "War on Terror" anymore than you can fight a "War on Abstract nouns". ALl that has happened is more people are being pissed off and becoming terrorists. Especially since for a lot of people it is seen as a "War on Islam".

6. Not accepting that bad foreign policy is responsible for a lot of anger from other countries. Instead spouting pithy statement like "they hate our freedom" etc. etc. that may be true for some of the "masterminds" but many of the grass roots terrorists have reasons along the lines of "supplying Israel with weapons" and so on.

I'm not doing my reason justice with these short statements. Nearly every reason I've given deserves a whole essay on it's own. Aside from that you can see that I don't dislike the US government because of America's optimism or some such bullshit.

# of attacks against US since 9/11: 0.

See following:

2001 September 18: November - 2001 anthrax attacks. Letters tainted with anthrax kill five across the United States. The case remains unsolved. 2002 July 4: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, kills 2 Israelis and wounds 4 others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, although they found no evidence linking Hadayet to any terrorist group (see[16]).

These 'are' terrorist attacks, and one was succesful.

Granted, they are not on a massive scale. However, they do refute your statement.

Oh, and here is the link.

WWW Link