Subject:
|
Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:29:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
789 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> ... that seems the wrong way to exit.
"Seems"? Is that like saying that water "seems" wet?
> Those who point out that this action shows that threatening hostages to try
> to influence countries is now more likely rather than less have a valid
> point, I think.
This is exactly the reason why many powerful nations have laws specifically
prohibiting themselves from negotiating with terrorists. It gives the
politicians a legal and quasi-moral means of letting terrorists kill a few
individuals when necessary with the idea that by not giving in they are "losing
the battle to win the war". Every time you give in to their demands, it's that
much easier to give in to even greater demands the next time because you've
already suffered psychological defeat.
“The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.”--Lenin. If they really wanted us to
leave, they'd stay quiet and lull us into believing we had succeeded, and only
after we'd left would they pounce on the reigning government and try to retake
the country. By attacking us, either with violence or threats thereof, they
force us to either stand up to them or essentially admit defeat. It's
essentially the same situation that Hussein put the world in by refusing to obey
the terms of his surrender. Either the terms must be enforced, or they lose all
of their political weight and he wins.
> And, make no mistake we're losing it. This is a significant defeat, I think.
Japan was faced with the same choice via an Iranian group, and even though
they're still dealing with the social impact of losing WWII, and the populace
was very vocally in favor of giving in, the government chose not to, and Iranian
religious leaders were able to negotiate the release of the hostage. That was a
significant victory. Given how fundamentalist the religious leadership is in
Iran, getting them in particular to take an active role in striving for a
peaceful solution to a terrorist action is a huge step towards getting the
various government and religious leadership of that entire region to stop
turning a blind eye to terrorist groups as a means of offering silent support
while maintaining plausible deniability.
> "Honest friendship with all who wish it, entangling alliances with none"
> Our friendship with dictators is dishonest to the people they oppress. Our
> alliances drag us into no win situations.
Our history of installing said dictators (like Saddam Hussein) in the first
place is even more dishonest, and our history of abandoning certain politically
inconvenient alliances (like our alliance with the Iraqi Kurds immedately after
the Gulf War) only serve to reinforce situations that are already bad. The only
justifiable cause for going to war is to establish peace, but you can't be so
timid about declaring war that your desire to avoid violence circumvents your
ability to maintain what peace you have. Switzerland was no less doomed than
the rest of Europe during WWII, but their neutrality meant that Europe was less
united against the war. Only through the intervention of other more powerful
nations was their peace preserved.
The underlying problem here is that we've gone from fighting an offensive war to
fighting a defensive war. The only war that we've ever lost was a defensive war
(as are the three that we're currently still involved in), and most of the
defensive wars that we've won have been on US soil. We fought both World Wars
as offensive wars. We fought the Gulf War as an offensive war. It's really
easy for us to win a war if we can just beat our way to their front door, force
a surrender, and then leave. When we have to stick around and defend them
afterwards, that's where our victory depends on our willingness to out-stare our
opponenets. We won the staring contest when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
We lost the staring contest with North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. We're
still staring on three fronts with South Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The
Korean situation, at least, hasn't involved any active waging of war for quite
some time, but both the Afghani and Iraqi situations are continuing to be
supported by the arrival of foreign individuals instead of foreign governments.
Where we were only fighting 2-3 governments in Korea, we're now fighting
thousands and thousands of what are essentially self-governing entities.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) No, it's saying I have an opinion about it and that's what it is, and despite it being *my* opinion, I'm not claiming infallability about it merely because I stated it. Sorry if that phrasing caused confusion. Hope that helps. (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Not the right way to exit?
|
| Most of you know I am no fan of our present little war. However: (URL) that seems the wrong way to exit. Those who point out that this action shows that threatening hostages to try to influence countries is now more likely rather than less have a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
