military superiority does it breed terrorist acts?


PDA

St. Gunner
January 23, 2003, 11:22 PM
I was having a discussion with a woman at school today and she brought up a point I have been pondering ever since. She was talking about the impending war in Iraq, the current conflict in Afghanistan, and Korea. She said that with our current military might and ability to destroy enemy troops with minor casualties from the air via the use of bombs and missles, that we have in fact left those with a dispute with us no option but to sneak around and take part in terror acts in an attempt to harm us. Further she felt that Korea and Iraqs pursuit of WMD is because they have no possible way to counter military might the US can bring to bear, that to them WMD are their only hope at a bargaining chip when it comes to the US.

She isn't anti-war, in fact her son is on a sub as I type this and she is real proud of him. She doesn't seem to think Iraq is a bad idea, just that by attacking and not giving them a conventional ground war we leave them no option but WMD or terror.

For the current US foot soldier I am sure the new war is far superior to the old war having that massive air power available to break enemy resolve and defenses. But by not pitting man against man on a battlefield are we denying the enemy a chance at some sort of retaliation in the lines of warfare?

I see some problems with this as to the cost issue. The sept. 11 attacks claimed I think 4-5 thousand lives, a drop in the bucket next to the names I witnessed on that black wall this past summer. What are your thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "military superiority does it breed terrorist acts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackhawk
January 23, 2003, 11:33 PM
Her points are good ones, but they're not valid.

The idea of deterrence is to convince your enemy that there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by attacking you.

It is not our intention, nor is it wise, for any potential enemy to have any means of resisting us should we be provoked into military action. If they want to "win", they must know that the only chance they have is to behave according to the way of international peace the U.S. espouses and promotes.

The U.S. is a superpower the likes of which has never existed before. Our enemies should be exceedingly glad we don't act like it or seek world domination.

MountainPeak
January 23, 2003, 11:37 PM
I do not believe for a second that the Bin Laden's of the world would renounce their agenda or acts if they were more equal to any country militarily.

St. Gunner
January 23, 2003, 11:54 PM
Blackhawk,

Thanks, makes sense, but then I think to my days as a kid on the school bus.

One day a guy who was years older and alot bigger decided to sorta poke at me, told me to do something and when I didn't comply he popped me upside the head, he knocked me into the aisle. I got up, sat back down and had it repeated three more times. After he hit me the fourth time I realized that unless I could cause him some sort of physical discomfort it would happen until I conceded to his demands. So I took out a #2 pencil and jabbed it into his leg, now he outweighed me by 100lbs or so but that pencil in the leg forced his hand. He knew he had to maim me or leave me alone at that point, it cost to much to continue, because I might have another pencil. I think this is the mindset of some of those we are dealing with, they are weaker, physically and mentally and while they realize they are doomed to failure they have to have an avenue of retaliation in order to save face. I could have sat down 5,6, or 7 times in that seat and got busted in the chops, it was an option or I could have simply moved seats. But to me it was an option of saving face.

Today I deal from a different perspective, feeling capable and able to handle most threats on an equal and most of the time higher level than anyone who would oppose me. But I temper my force with an understanding of the other guys dilema, in the CHL classes they call it conflict resolution. Is our government practicing proper conflict resolution or just trying to run the whole world?

But if you give the guy no option for resolution are you formulating these types of resistance?

I think Iraq needs to be handled, but I think we have been posturing and flexing to much. I learned years ago you let the blow go at the earliest chance, because if you don't you may be reeling from the blow delivered to you.

I also feel that we are being set-up by all the above mentioned posturing and allowing Iraq to have a chance to throw that sucker punch our way. Wouldn't that change some anti-war protesters minds.

Just some disconnected thoughts on this, I got to get to bed.

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 12:15 AM
But if you give the guy no option for resolution are you formulating these types of resistance? Keep in mind that the kid on the bus was a bully. The U.S. is not. The entire U.N. Security Council wouldn't have sided with a bully, nor would Britain, Russia, and other allies, including Arab countries.

If a bully is attacking a weaker party, there is no choice than to retaliate.

We're not talking about schoolkids here. There is a level of behavior that must be met by all nations, and like it or not, the only worldwide enforcement power is the U.S.

We have dithered far too long, and taken the first wake up punch following a flurry of jabs. It's our right and duty to force Iraq and any other party bent on our destruction to tow the line.

I predict that the bully in this case, one Saddam H., will take life in exile over dying in a coup or facing justice in court or getting blown up like a rat in a drain pipe. I've been predicting this for over a year, and the time is nigh.

Art Eatman
January 24, 2003, 12:16 AM
St. Gunner, considering just your comment, "But if you give the guy no option for resolution are you formulating these types of resistance?"

According to Bin Laden himself, he's doing his deal because we have troops in Saudi Arabia, which to him is sacrilege. Fine. Problem is, our troops are there with the approval of the accepted governing body of Saudi Arabia.

Seems to me, then, that his problem should be with the Saudi ruling family, not with us. He had plenty of options besides killing 2,700 people and destroying the World Trade Center buildings.

Note that almost every terrorist act, whether the Animal Rights Idiots, the Palestinian types or Al Quaeda, stems from an irrational view of the world in which these people live. They all have extreme tunnel vision as to the absolute righteousness of their desires and goals, regardless of anybody else's opinions or rights.

Art

Navy joe
January 24, 2003, 12:22 AM
By extension that would mean that if everyone carried a gun every pickpocket and 2-bit hold-up artist would shoot to kill. Logically then the solution is to go around unarmed and no one will hurt you.

Doesn't hold up.

Yes, terrorism is sometimes the most effective military solution for some of these people. The cost we bear for terrorism is much less than it would be if we decided to take away our technology and "fight fair". About the same as saying that the sucess of the Battle of Britain and Normandy sucesses caused London to be a V-1 and V-2 sponge. Yep it sucked, yes they still speak english there.

Like the gun lawsuits this is also unconcious blame transferrance which seems to be exceedingly popular. Instead of blaming the terrorists for being sub-human scum that kill kids, we blame the U.S. military for being so damn good. Ah yeah. :scrutiny:

EJ
January 24, 2003, 12:28 AM
Terrorists are by defiition illogical and not running on the same set of concepts with the rest of us--

Dannyboy
January 24, 2003, 04:03 AM
Something else to consider is that Iraq and NK have two of the largest armies on the planet. Superpower or not, I'd say we're at something of a disadvantage. I think that Saddam wants WMD's because he's a psychopath who wants to kill as many people as he possibly can and Kim Whatshisname is a psychopath who wants to make money selling nukes to other psychopaths that want to kill Americans.

St. Gunner
January 24, 2003, 08:23 AM
Navy Joe said:
Instead of blaming the terrorists for being sub-human scum that kill kids, we blame the U.S. military for being so damn good. Ah yeah.

I don't blame anyone for anything that happens to them, but every action that happens I look for what part I may have played in it. I also in most instances try to place myself in the other guys shoes to see how I can avoid a confrontation. At times, that confrontation is unavoidable and sometimes the weak kneed sissies around the world refuse to see that it is, sometimes in the recent past we have been the weak kneed sissies. I was thinking about the utter uselessness of battling it out with a force like the US, you have to begin to look for other options to get your agenda accepted.

Look how most of us feel about the BATF and the other laws and regulations handed down by our government. I'm not saying this is a horrible place to live, but they have some of us reeling looking to find a way through peaceful means to recoup things they have taken over the past 68yrs or so.



BlackHawk said:
Keep in mind that the kid on the bus was a bully. The U.S. is not. The entire U.N. Security Council wouldn't have sided with a bully, nor would Britain, Russia, and other allies, including Arab countries.

I don't know Blackhawk, there have been some instances in the last twenty or so years right here on American soil I have felt our government has been a bully, and we enjoy a huge deal more freedom than some other countries we set the rules in do. There is a line between bully and pre-emptive protective action, I think at times because we are imperfect we cross that line, and sometimes we fail in our duty to be ever vigilant and act in a proper pre-emptive manner.


Art said:
Note that almost every terrorist act, whether the Animal Rights Idiots, the Palestinian types or Al Quaeda, stems from an irrational view of the world in which these people live. They all have extreme tunnel vision as to the absolute righteousness of their desires and goals, regardless of anybody else's opinions or rights.

Art, lots of people feel we live in an irrational view of the world because we prefer to enjoy our liesure time with firearms. That view doesn't bother us because we find it irrelevant to our own ideals. So do they...




Dannyboy said:
I think that Saddam wants WMD's because he's a psychopath who wants to kill as many people as he possibly can and Kim Whatshisname is a psychopath who wants to make money selling nukes to other psychopaths that want to kill Americans.

Totally agreed without a seconds hesitation.


EJ said:
Terrorists are by defiition illogical and not running on the same set of concepts with the rest of us--

EJ, let the government carry gun control to far, let them press a little to much, and let the first man who squeezes a trigger on a federal agent attempting to enforce that law become in the media and to the government not a guerrilla or freedom fighter or a patriot, but a terrorist. I think my definition of terrorism defines targeting children and non-combatents because they are soft targets. But to most of the rest of the 3rd world, everyone is a viable target, we have a conflict of moral ideals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that being said, I think the proper response is to dispose of Saddamm posthaste and to wreck his military structure, not cripple it. I think that we have shown to much restraint in our hunting of Al Quadi since the attack and most likely before. But I bet if you pull one of those detainees aside and asked em why they did it, they'd give you a reason that included they felt the US was exerting to much power around the world in some way shape or form. What I have been trying to figure out, what I have been pondering since that day that the sky cleared of contrails is "WHY?" I don't believe in random acts of violence by groups of people like Al Quadi, they have to have a cause and a reason.

Viking6
January 24, 2003, 08:49 AM
With our superior technology and training, we will defeat the Iraqis. How much blood that will be shed (on all sides) is to be determined. An enemy that fights to your strengths is stupid. That is why they will use aymmetric threats to counter your strengths. As we have said on THR and TFL, as individuals we don't want a fair fight in our dealings with possible bad guys, don't assume these folks want one with us as a nation. Terrorists see our vulnerabilities and attack them. On September 11, 2001 as I watched the terror unfold, I shared two observations with my co-workers. 1) We now know how the Israelis feel everyday 2) This is liking having a Cadillac smashed by an uninsured driver. In other words, there is nothing that they have that can replace our loss. Back to original thread, does military superiority breed terrorism? No, it requires asymmetric counters.

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 09:56 AM
I don't know Blackhawk, there have been some instances in the last twenty or so years right here on American soil I have felt our government has been a bully, and we enjoy a huge deal more freedom than some other countries we set the rules in do. There is a line between bully and pre-emptive protective action, I think at times because we are imperfect we cross that line, and sometimes we fail in our duty to be ever vigilant and act in a proper pre-emptive manner.Let's talk about those instances.

You start.

I can't think of any....

St. Gunner
January 24, 2003, 10:09 AM
Well the most talked about seem to be the Weavers and Waco, another that comes to mind is the BATF tossing a gunshop in Arizona and pitching guns into trash cans for a supposed violation. Then we could fade over to 80yr old grannies being bullied by airport security officers in an attempt to be PC. Then we could talk about the way we as a nation have been bullied into giving up countless privacies because of the 9-11 attacks. We could talk about the bullying practices of the IRS and the way they have harrassed citizens with a tax that is by most accounts unconstitutional. I guess we could talk about the AWB that George senior signed. We could touch on the infringements many have felt because of the war on drugs, the proliferation of no-knocks, some on wrong houses. We could talk about waiting periods and how they hurt people during the riots in California years back. We could talk about the laws that restrict peoples ability to defend themselves from the criminal elements... I don't know Blackhawk, I can't think of anymore in the couple minutes I have taken to type this. Oh I can, the federally regulated speed limits and threats of not returning tax dollars collected via income tax, the government uses to prompt the states to keep them set at a certain level.

Now granted I haven't been hauled off to an oven, sent to dig my own grave, or been raped by storm troopers but I have had my freedoms chilled through our governments bullying actions towards my rights and liberties.

I'm sure I could do some more in depth research of just one law enforcement branch of the federal government and find a list of bullying tactics.

Oh Ridges newest toy, the ability to wiretap without probable cause.

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 10:20 AM
I don't know Blackhawk, I can't think of anymore in the couple minutes I have taken to type this. But all that you've mentioned are internal. The context is international relations.

Are there any examples in the last "twenty or so years" where the U.S. has bullied another nation?

Monica inspirred Clinton adventures and Noriega get a little of the spotlight, but not enough to qualify.

St. Gunner
January 24, 2003, 10:33 AM
Blackhawk,

It depends on if you are an isolationist or not. Some seem to feel that our policing actions in other countries are justifiable and proper, some feel they are not. I'm actually torn on the issue, some use of force in countries to me is ok, but other places I have asked, what the heck are we doing there in the first place? But the fact is, if we step into another country and force our will on them or our way of life, we are in fact bullying some portion of that countries population. Some people just want to be communists, socialists, or assorted other political leanings we as Americans find heinous. So to them, any action that seeks to depower their political leanings is bullying.

What I was and am saying Blackhawk, if we can find our own governments policies bullying, how do you think other nations and individuals in those nations feel when they don't share our justice system and liberties?

Art Eatman
January 24, 2003, 10:56 AM
St. Gunner, that laundry list you mentioned, with the Weavers and Waco included: No irrationality, there? That somebody somehow "merely" has a different view does not make that view rational. Rationality would have gun-control laws effective in reducing crime.

The Arab hatred for Jews, just because Jews are Jews, that's not irrational? How are they different from Hitler, other than military power?

The Pitiful PETA People: How is equating a rat with a boy supposed to be rational? How is it rational to take such a notion as an underlying reason to splatter paint on a woman's mink coat, drive nails into trees or burn down a scientific laboratory?

To say that folks merely have different views is to fall into the trap of moral relativism, like saying that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are governments with different views and those views have equal morality.

Art

MessedUpMike
January 24, 2003, 11:04 AM
Does military superiority breed terrorism, yes and no.
In the High Morally Minded sense of the word where good guys don't hurt women or children, never shoot in the back, and prefer dueling then no military superiority would not encourage terrorism. The bad guys would realize that they can't win, and just hide in caves and sulk.
In the real world terrorism becomes a more complex issue. At what point do "Freedom Fighters" become terrorists. Gurellia warfare does not lend itself well to the Geneva Accords, hell the bombinmg that takes place every time we engage in any major military action since the 1940's hasn't exactly been cicvilain friendly. Does it mean that we are trying to kill civilians, no, but how many of us consider collateral damage an acceptable price to pay for victory. Where the purpotrators of the Boston Tea Party terrorists? What about Nat Turner's slave revolt? Hero or villian? Idaelly I'd like to think that if I was in the sort of desperate situation that require carbombing etc. I would do everything possible to minimize non-combatant casualities, but realistically I'm not so sure I'd care. Especailly if my non-combatants were being harmed.
I can't even decide for sure if war in Iraq has been completely justified. If WMD eveidence is found the yes. The problem is much like No Knock Warrants there is a lot of power and authority being thrown around and we have to make sure that we're doing the right thing.

Hkmp5sd
January 24, 2003, 11:40 AM
Another thing to consider is WHY they want WMD or why they resort to terrorism.

Iraq wants to be the leader of the Arab world and wants WMD to give them that position. North Korea wants South Korea, which has been a sore spot for them since their invasion and war back in the 50's. To add insult to injury, there would be no North Korea if China had not bailed them out.

Unlike the mutual deterence between the US and USSR, where there was no winner in the event of war, even if Iraq and North Korea obtain WMD, they have no chance of winning a war with us. In fact, the presence of WMD would guarantee a preemptive strike against them in the event of serious problems. If Iraq had functional nukes right now, the US would not be letting the UN play hide and seek games. We simply could not take the chance of them smuggling one into the US and detonating it.

Terrorism is different can of worms. The radical Islam of the terrorists actually views the United States & western nations as the source of all problems in the world. They view Christianity as a religion that has been corrupted by the US and therefore it must fade away. They do not believe in a world where both Muslims and Christians live together in peace.

Iraqi Shiite scholar Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr stated, "The world of today today is how others [non-muslims] shaped it. We have two choices: either to accept it with submission, which means letting Islam die, or to destroy it, so we can construct the world as Islam requires." This was proven, they believe, when Sadat visited Jerusalem in 1977.

Sheikh AbdAllah Yussuf Azzam, a Ph.D. in principles of Islamic jurisprudence from al-Azhar University, taught his students, "Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues." One of his better known students was Osama bin Laden.

Military superiority is just one of many excuses these groups use to justify their actions. They couldn't really come out and state officially they wanted to wipe Christainity off the face of the earth or they would lose their sympathetic supporters like the democratic party.

geekWithA.45
January 24, 2003, 11:40 AM
This assertion is really about blaming the victim. (US)

Military superiority, in and of itself, does not breed terrorism.

Oppression, lack of hope for the future, and the inability to directly confront the oppressor does. Happy, well fed people with hope for the future do not strap bombs on themselves.

The critical questions are who is doing the oppressing, in other words, who is most directly responsible for your unfortunate state? Could it be....corrupt middle eastern regimes? Could it be...your own failure to get your act together? Could it be...your own mullas? Could it be racist/sexist/whateverist policies in your own countries?

SARCASM Naw...it's gotta be that great satan, the good old US of A. /SARCASM

Also, for a proposition to stand up, it's inverse also has to hold water. Does it seem reasonable that military weakness somehow prevents terrorism? I don't think so.

Mute
January 24, 2003, 11:45 AM
Terrorism isn't a military response. It is the act of self centered whiners who needs someone to blame for their own misery and who are too much of a coward to fight face to face against those they blame.

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 11:53 AM
What I was and am saying Blackhawk, if we can find our own governments policies bullying, how do you think other nations and individuals in those nations feel when they don't share our justice system and liberties?The policies of Daleville, AL, are NOT the policies of the U.S. government. Internal affairs are just that. When the Congress approves the President taking military action, that's a U.S. policy.

I want discrete examples of the U.S. bullying another nation as a part of U.S. policy. Simple, really....

Sean Smith
January 24, 2003, 12:18 PM
Well, military superiority breeds terrorist attacks only in the sense that it is effective at deterring conventional and nuclear attacks. In other words, it makes direct military attack a non-option for those that have already decided to attack us anyway. Thus, they have to resort to means other than conventional attack, given that in their minds the idee fixe is "peace with America is not an option."

If we voluntarily gave up our conventional and nuclear superiority, we would be subject to those forms of attack, because it would have a chance of success. Sure, terrorism would decline, but we would face open war instead, and at a disadvantage.

Oleg Volk
January 24, 2003, 12:31 PM
Asymmetric warfare methods does NOT EQUAL terrorism.

Example: WW2 guerillas would blow up a German (or Soviet) armored car, kill three soldiers. That's asymmetric warfare. The affected army, lacking any idea as to whodoneit, rounds up and shoots thirty civilians who are, even by the executioners' admission, had nothing to do with the ambush. That's terrorism. It cannot be stopped by concessions or any action except extermination of the terrorists: the mindset which allows murder of innocents as a public statement is not swayed by rational concerns, and tangos would simply step up wanton mass murder once no opposition remains.

Terrorism by any organized is entirely counterproductive as, eventually, folks wise up and realize they have less to lose by fighting back. The only other choice for the tangos is to stay anonymous and keep on killing. Trouble is, that makes it just about impossible for them to press any political program.

That, in turn, leads to the IRA-political/IRA-fighting divisions which grapple with UK govt/UK army. Both sides say "play by the rules" or the really nasty people who want the same thing we do will try their methods. That works so long as neither side thinks they have an overwhelming advantage. That may be what has kept the US from truning into a battlefield: no one social or ethnic group has any chance of winning a war against the others.

St. Gunner
January 24, 2003, 12:32 PM
Sean,

I think you just clarified my feelings on the issue. What the woman said made a certain bit of sense and I can't dismiss it. But I also talked above about the added cost of such action being a larger body count of soldiers in those conflicts.


BlackHawk,

I'm for the most part an isolationist, politically and personally. Two I can think of offhand that didn't appear to have any direct threat to US national security would be Somalia and Bosnia. Iraq has always been a credible threat because of its ability to fund terrorists and attack its neighbors which would effect are oil supply.

Navy joe
January 24, 2003, 12:39 PM
As I alluded to before; yes military superiority helps breed this terrorism. No, that is not necessarily worse than being weak and "empowering" them to think they can line up their conventional land army and come stomp us. If "terrorism" then, target military forces(Hey, that's me! :neener: Doh!). By this standard Beirut, Khobar, and the USS Cole can be seen as unconventional acts of war. The fact that we didn't know we were in a war is irrelevant and another thread topic. (The four color codes of national security AKA Caught with our pants down again)

What's different and that Mike didn't really express in his post is when you intentionally target civilians, not just collect them as collateral damage. It's safe to say that Al-quada didn't crash two airplanes into the world trade center to try to get the local recruiter's office. Maybe the idea of the world's mothers, elders and children not being war targets is outmoded like the idea of honorable combat, but we don't see it that way here. If we do, civilization as we know it is screwed.

So if "terrorism" is the sole means left, pick on a military target, just please don't whine to the court of world opinion when a remote control plane turns your SUV into a smoking hole on the desert roadside.

P.S. To be classed as a freedom fighter it would help if you fought for something other than the freedom to enslave the world to your dogma or to protect your poppy/coca/oil/_______ patch.

Oleg Volk
January 24, 2003, 12:47 PM
Maybe the idea of the world's mothers, elders and children not being war targets is outmoded like the idea of honorable combat, but we don't see it that way here.

The concept of leaving civillians alone is pretty new. Prior to 17th century, that was unheard of, and the world gradually came around to that view by WW1, some sooner than others.

To be classed as a freedom fighter it would help if you fought for something other than the freedom to enslave the world to your dogma or to protect your poppy/coca/oil/_______ patch.

Isn't it what we and everyone else fight for: self-determination and property? Trying to sort out real and professed motives isn't exactly an simple or an accurate process. Or is it a matter of which side is worse? By that standard, some invaders may have been a lesser evil than the original residents...would that make colonial conquests of "civilized" countries against local cannibals right? Some folks say it would (improvement of quality of life under the new government, such as the abolition of widow-burning in India under British rule), some would say that self-determination is more important than the results from it.

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 02:09 PM
Two I can think of offhand that didn't appear to have any direct threat to US national security would be Somalia and Bosnia. Somalia started as a UN sponsored humanitarian effort, and Clinton turned it into a witch hunt when it should have been turned into a memory.

Bosnia was a NATO operation.

Any examples of the U.S. singularly bullying some other country?

A parallel to what I'm seeking in response to your groundless allegation is the USSR invading Afghanistan, killing its government leaders, and setting up a puppet regime only to get into a war that cleaned its clock.

My point is that the U.S. doesn't have a history of bullying other nations on its own. It deliberates with and joins up with allies beforehand to stomp rogue nations under the color of international law. Even in Vietnam, I was up to my ears many times with Australians, Koreans, and others, and their participation was not just token.

It may well be in our best interests to sanitize Iran, Iraq, Libya, and some other countries, but we're not going to do it without the participation and cooperation of other countries. The reason is very simple. The American People will not put up with our government using our American Military for such adventures.

There's going to be a Whacko Reno and a Crazy Clinton now and then, and they'll screw up on the foreign and domestic fronts every once in a while. But they're not speaking and acting according to the will of the American People any more than Al (Sharpton or Gore, take your pick), or Jesse Jackson, or any of the other self promoting wannabes. When you ask America what it wants to do, it takes about 10 years to get an answer, but if you attack it, you'll find out pretty quick.

hops
January 24, 2003, 05:23 PM
Let's see - Panama was the result of some U.S. bullying around the turn of the century. One can argue that the 'liberation' of Cuba and the Phillipines from Spain, fall in to the bully arena.

The U.S. was certainly a bully in trying to keep others out of Central and South America. Those Banana Republics are ours to dominate, dammit.

The acquisition of Florida and the Southwest can be classified as U.S. bullying (making war on weaklings)

Just because one is a democracy does not imply that one is not a bully in certain manners.

One can certainly argue that the U.S. was a relatively civilized bully in that it did pay significant monetary damages to those it bullied.

Drjones
January 24, 2003, 05:29 PM
She said that with our current military might and ability to destroy enemy troops with minor casualties from the air via the use of bombs and missles, that we have in fact left those with a dispute with us no option but to sneak around and take part in terror acts in an attempt to harm us.

Whatever happened to TALKING TO US FIRST??? :rolleyes:

Diplomacy, you know.......

:banghead:

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 05:48 PM
hops wrote:Let's see - Panama was the result of some U.S. bullying around the turn of the century. One can argue that the 'liberation' of Cuba and the Phillipines from Spain, fall in to the bully arena.

The U.S. was certainly a bully in trying to keep others out of Central and South America. Those Banana Republics are ours to dominate, dammit.

The acquisition of Florida and the Southwest can be classified as U.S. bullying (making war on weaklings)
So you think all those things happened in the last "twenty or so years" as the original statement was propounded?

"Manifest Destiny" was certainly a U.S. bullying policy, but it's even older than I am....

Blackhawk
January 24, 2003, 05:49 PM
Whatever happened to TALKING TO US FIRST??? Home run for Drjones....

wingnutx
January 24, 2003, 06:38 PM
IMHO, it is our perceived weakness that has led these groups to attack us. The taliban would have expelled Bin Laden ASAP if they had believed that the consequences of harboring him would be the destruction of their regime. They let him stage attacks from their soil only because they did not believe that we had the will to fight them.

Bin Laden himself said (somewhat paraphrased) "People support us because they will always favor a strong horse over a weak one". He observed our failure to retaliate for earlier attacks as a license to strike at will.

True, it is a lack of serious military capability that dictates their tactics, but they would use any mean they had available, be it car bombs or nuclear weapons.

hops
January 24, 2003, 07:03 PM
Blackhawk - you got me. I tried to stretch that 20 or so odd years - taking the odd years to 80+ years back was a bit much on my part. :)

Silly of St. Gunner to just limit the bully debate to just 20 years. :)

Grenada in '83 could fall under bullying, although I supported that move whole heartedly. hey that 10K foot airstrip was to being in tourists. :)

The usual crap in Central America in the 80's was just an extention of the '50s. Yes, bullying, but also a fight against the commies. Let's say that bullying led to the commies getting a foothold.

Clinton, the U.S., did sort of bully Israel in to the Oslo accords. Bullying can just be the threat of some negative action coming your way.

No one is perfect. The U.S. is just a little less imperfect than most other nations. In the era of active Manifest Destiny, the U.S. did pay Mexico 15 odd million dollars for the southwest, 10 million dollars to Columbia for Panama and I forget the other number (Spain I think got 10 to 15 million for Cuba, the Phillipines and a few islands).

Usually in the bad old days, the victors took land and extracted cash from the loosers. The U.S. is a saint when compared to all other bully nations of the era.

Now, Iraq is really just a springboard to bully Iran, but that quagmire is something that the U.S. and the rest of the world must face. Iran's ruling nutcases are a far greater threat than Saddam Insane. Iraq is a drop in the Islamic Terrorist bucket when it comes to Iran and its Mullahs.

Marshall
January 24, 2003, 08:11 PM
The bottom line is:

If we do nothing, we invite more attacks because we appear week and have become enablers. The 1990's proved this!

If we do have a war, it is because Saddam won't come into complience and his intentions have been stated. We have no option because the next attack on our land here is the US could be far worse than 911.

I don't want to be an enabler! I can deal with myself in the mirror if I vote for fighting to protect our country and have trouble happen at home. But, when trouble happens here at home and thousands die because we did nothing, especially after being warned, I couldn't look in the mirror!

To me, it's flat the right thing to do.

G-Raptor
January 24, 2003, 08:44 PM
I only did a quick scan of the thread, but I'll toss in a few cents anyway.

The question is whether military superiority breeds terrorism. The answer is yes, but only if your enemy wants to attack you. People don't attack you simply BECAUSE you're stronger. They have to have other motives.

Once they decide to attack, they would be foolish to come at you head on. If you 5'6" and 140lbs, you don't get into a boxing match with the heavyweight champion. It's suicide. It's worse than suicide; you're almost certain to be annihilated without inflicting any injury on the big guy.

St. Gunner
January 24, 2003, 10:38 PM
Blackhawk,

Actually the 20yrs was a window for bullying of us by government, but I also included those two events on an international level. I also don't care if the UN sanctioned those actions, we made the plays in the end, we can't just stand back and blame the UN.

Actually I think in terms of the world we are pretty civilized for the most part, not as civilized as France wants us to be, but then who wants to be like the French.

If you want to see some true ruthless brutality, look at the conquest of Texas and the battles or more accuratley genocide that occured in an effort to liberate huge chunks of land for white land owners.

I think we covered about all the bases here, I learned a few things and actually enjoyed what was said far and away. Just for the record I never said I thought we ought to practice what that woman said, I did find it intriguing.

Art Eatman
January 24, 2003, 10:47 PM
St Gunner: "Conquest of Texas"? By whom?

Art

St. Gunner
January 24, 2003, 11:33 PM
Art,

I might get some stuff wrong, i'll check it when I get the chance. We all should be familiar with the story of the Alamo, and that was during Texas's fight for Independence from Mexico. But you have to remember that Texas was already settled by Mexicans at the time. So when Texas fought for her independance and finally achieved it, we had a state filled with people other than white American settlers. After the war and actually into the 1900's rich white landowners started to strive for more land, but the problem was that deep in South Texas many families refused to move just because a rich white fella told them to. In time those families began to be slaughtered, some incidents where staged to look like Indian or Bandit raids but some where in the open and even bragged about. The Texas rangers where formed and many of the wealthy rich landowners corrupted them and paid them to do their bidding, pitch these hold-outs off, or slaughter them.

The sons and Grandsons of those original men who conquered the settlers still living in Texas after the Texas war for independance often refer to that time frame as the purging or the 2nd revolution of Texas. I didn't learn all that in Texas history but sat down one afternoon with a landowner who had a number of pastures named after hispanic families, "Garcia, Valdez, Fuentes..." His Great Grandfather started it, his grandfather gained more and in the 1920's or there abouts his own father began campaigns to drive out more of these families so they could claim more land.

Sorta ironic that the families who did this in the late 1800's and early 1900s are today being driven out under the same threats many times by drug runners looking to establish a corridor for their business.

Thus endeth the history lesson.

Pick-up a book titled Borderlands by Gloria Anzaldua, it is not all exactly factual, but most of it is right on the money, actually don't waste your money on the book go to a store and read the first chapter of the book, it won't take long, but it gives a decent history of the area, but not one you find in American history books.

jmbg29
January 24, 2003, 11:58 PM
She said that with our current military might and ability to destroy enemy troops with minor casualties from the air via the use of bombs and missles, that we have in fact left those with a dispute with us no option but to sneak around and take part in terror acts in an attempt to harm us.The most appropriate way to deal with absurdity is to take it to its logical end.

We run out on the field of battle, and in order not to make the enemy feel like winning is hopeless, we collectively roll onto our backs like unwhelped submissive pups. Is it at this point that we should expect the belly-rub?

God only knows what the precise moment in time was when those that loiter about what we eupemistically call "schools", began to teach, no, make that preach, self-loathing and hatred for America and Americans, but it has to be stopped!!!!!!!!!!

Not enough Americans are going to come home in an aluminum coffin, ergo the 7th century barbarians :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: are left with no alternative other than to cut the throats of flight attendants and fly innocents into BUILDINGS FILLED WITH INNOCENTS???????

GRRRRRRR!:fire: :fire: :fire:

What the hell is she thinking?!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "military superiority does it breed terrorist acts?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!