France Will Never Forget

[Guest American Woman]

That's part of what amazes me. Britain couldn't even come up with a candidate who doesn't support the war, yet they're critical of us regarding the war.

Politics is complicated and people often have to hold their nose and vote. There were fringe parties that opposed the war but they don't have much of a chance in a FPP system. That said, Blair was quietly booted from office by his party and the war was one of the biggest issues.

In the long term, Bush winning a second term is probably the best outcome for people that opposed the war. He has had a chance to be completely discredited. If he was booted out in 2004 he could have blamed the subsequent failure on Kerry even though failure is the only possible outcome at this point in time.

I agree. Politics is complicated, which is why it amazes me that the world holds Americans so personally responsible for the actions of our government, as those who criticize make excuses for their actions. Yes, they did get rid of Blair, but that was two-three years later, so why weren't they perceived the same way Americans were at the time? Why weren't they blamed for their government's action? Why did they see America as a war monger, as their country was right there beside us the whole time? Looking at England's history, I hardly think Brits have the right to 'throw stones.'

And on the subject of getting rid of Blair: interesting that Britain was the target of another terrorist attack right after getting a new anti-war PM. Guess it doesn't really matter whether the people/government support the war or not.

But I agree that Kerry would have been blamed for everything had he been elected. That was the one consolation I had when Bush was re-elected; that he'd still be around to have to deal with the mess he created. And speaking of politics being complicated, perhaps that's what some of the voters thought when giving Bush their vote. Just a thought.

[ScottSA]

Really? So when can we expect the "Treaty 8" First Nations to rise up and attack Canada because of exploitation and environmental degradation of Athabasca Oil Sands?

Natives in Canada are allowed to participate in a legal system that will protect their rights. They have no need to resort to terrorism. However, if a future Canadian government unilaterally removed those protections we would likely see terrorism from native groups. When standoffs erupt the Canadian government bends over backwards trying to avoid bloodshed - an approach that is often criticized. But it is sensible because creating native 'martyrs' would be a catalyst that would trigger terrorism in the future.

Native "terror" tends to end up with Natives being beaten with a stick. I strongly suspect a new go-round would end up the same way.

[sharkman]

How can you fix such a situation without force?

All forms of terrorism depend on finding a pool of recruits that believe they are a victim. Villifying a religion practiced by a billion people who are not suicide bombers, invading their countries and handing thier oil wealth over to foreign corporations is a excellent way to perpetrate this victim complex and ensure a steady supply of recruits.

There are no easy solutions to the mess that exists now, however, it is pretty obvious that military force has failed in Iraq and will fail in Afghanistan. It is time to find a different way.

I would submit that all forms of terrorism depend on much more than finding those who believe they are a victim, otherwise Canada would be rife with terrorism since 100s of thousands right now believe they are victims. Recent history shows us that American blacks never resorted to terrorism like Islamic terrorists, neither have gays, natives, or religious folk of any stripe. How all of these groups differ from Muslim extremists is they don't have a religion calling for Holy war and ministers calling for Jewish heads to be chopped off.

It's a good thing then that Islam is not being villified. If it was, the situation might be ten times worse. As it is the Western media won't print anything that Muslims might be offended at. In comparison, they are critical of many other religions.

[Riverwind]

I would submit that all forms of terrorism depend on much more than finding those who believe they are a victim

All terrorism has it roots in perceived historical injustices and a feeling if powerlessness among those that consider themselves to be victims. This does not mean that every one who has experienced injustice will turn to terrorism. What it does mean is that one cannot fight terrorism by further victimizing the people who have already turned to terrorism.

[bush_cheney2004]

All terrorism has it roots in perceived historical injustices and a feeling if powerlessness among those that consider themselves to be victims. This does not mean that every one who has experienced injustice will turn to terrorism. What it does mean is that one cannot fight terrorism by further victimizing the people who have already turned to terrorism.

Not necessarily so...terrorism is a very old concept that dates back to at least Aristotle. State and state sponsored terrorism can be found throughout history with no foundation for "injustice" or "powerlessness". Ditto the ruling classes, or self appointed KKK vigilantes in Canada or America. This includes such things as Soviet purges, American "Red Scare", or even CanAM internments of Japanese or residential schools.

Edited July 24, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

This includes such things as Soviet purges, American "Red Scare", or even CanAM internments of Japanese or residential schools.

All of which have nothing to do with random attacks on civilians. Islamic terrorism is not a tool used by a state to war wage for economic gain. It is the result of jealousies and resentments that have built up over decades within Islamic societies - resentments which have been aggravated by foreign policy choices of the current 'big-kid-on-the-block' (i.e. the US). I am not saying these resentments are reasonable and that we should bend over backwards to correct 'injustices' that are not really injustices. I am simplying saying that using overwhelming military force to combat terrorism is like pouring water on a grease fire - i.e. it will always make the problem worse that it already is. Edited July 24, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

All of which have nothing to do with random attacks on civilians. Islamic terrorism is not a tool used by a state to war wage for economic gain. It is the result of jealousies and resentments that have built up over decades within Islamic societies - resentments which have been aggravated by foreign policy choices of the current 'big-kid-on-the-block' (i.e. the US). I am not saying these resentments are reasonable and that we should bend over backwards to correct 'injustices' that are not really injustices. I am simplying saying that using overwhelming military force to combat terrorism is like pouring water on a grease fire - i.e. it will always make the problem worse that it already is.

Really? The Klan most definitely committed random attacks on "civilains". Methinks you are simplifying too much, as there are instances in history when "terrorism" has been overcome with military force...see Philippine-American War (1899-1902).

I am just taking your simple definitions to task, because they are no more an understanding or resolution than conventional "shoot first, ask questions later" strategy.

[August1991]

Well, this thread has certainly been hijacked.

All terrorism has it roots in perceived historical injustices and a feeling if powerlessness among those that consider themselves to be victims. This does not mean that every one who has experienced injustice will turn to terrorism. What it does mean is that one cannot fight terrorism by further victimizing the people who have already turned to terrorism.

Riverwind, that's another version of "blame the victim" or "root causes" arguments. You are applying reason to what amounts to superstititious, emotional behaviour.

The 3,000 people killed in September 2001 were completely innocent. They were quietly going about their lives that morning just as each of us do every day.

It seems odd that you find a way to excuse anyone who deliberately, in cold blood sets out to murder such people. Indeed, the perpretators wanted to kill as many innocent people as they could in as dramatic a way as possible.

I'm inclined to believe that the best way to counteract this Islamist threat is to respond with greater and more sophisticated force. Bin Laden referred to choosing the faster horse. If ours is the better society, then we must demonstrably show that our horse is faster.

Kowtowing to or patronizing superstitious people will get us nowhere.

As to terrorists, they are not that different from other criminal gangs such as the mafia or the Hell's Angels. The best way to counteract such groups is to infiltrate and/or use informers. Money is often a great motivator in getting people to talk, particularly when it's presented as a guarantee for the future of wives or children.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, that's another version of "blame the victim" or "root causes" arguments. You are applying reason to what amounts to superstititious, emotional behaviour.

Not at all. Read what I actually said - not what you assume I said. I am simply stating that military force is not an effective way to deal with a terrorism problem because terrorism does have roots in perceived historical injustices.

As to terrorists, they are not that different from other criminal gangs such as the mafia or the Hell's Angels. The best way to counteract such groups is to infiltrate and/or use informers.

I agree 100% - I have said all along that the 'war on terror' is a matter for police and intelligence services. Unfortunately, Americans were duped into believing that it was a military matter.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree 100% - I have said all along that the 'war on terror' is a matter for police and intelligence services. Unfortunately, Americans were duped into believing that it was a military matter.

Interesting....was this the same logic for the October Crisis in Canada, complete with War Measures Act and military force? Were Canadians duped?

[Riverwind]

Interesting....was this the same logic for the October Crisis in Canada, complete with War Measures Act and military force? Were Canadians duped?

Many people say it was an over reaction and would likely never be invoked again. More importantly, invoking the war measures act which temporarily infringed on the rights of citizens has no comparison to the invasion of another country that has cost the US dearly in blood and money and has only succeeded in making the terrorism problem worse.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many people say it was an over reaction and would likely never be invoked again. More importantly, invoking the war measures act which temporarily infringed on the rights of citizens has no comparison to the invasion of another country that has cost the US dearly in blood and money and has only succeeded in making the terrorism problem worse.

That would read as rationalization for Canada's policy and actions to address the FLQ, but still doesn't explain away Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. Another "over reaction"?

The "terrorism problem" existed long befor the invasion of Iraq, bombing of Iraq, sanctioning of Iraq, and Gulf War against Iraq. Which of these "really" pissed them off?

What do you care what it costs the USA...it's blood and money we are willing to spend for now.

[Black Dog]

Interesting....was this the same logic for the October Crisis in Canada, complete with War Measures Act and military force? Were Canadians duped?

Sure. Many Canadians supported it, but people are dumb like that. Faced with a perceived threat (no matter how inconsequential it really is), they want the security of a Big Daddy State (see: the right-wing position vis the "war on terror"). Doesn't make the threat any more real or the response any more appropriate. Which brings us to...

Riverwind, that's another version of "blame the victim" or "root causes" arguments. You are applying reason to what amounts to superstititious, emotional behaviour.

But the 9-11 attacks, their antecedants and their follow-ups are products of rational thought. Just as the revenge attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were. Punch. Counter-punch.

The 3,000 people killed in September 2001 were completely innocent. They were quietly going about their lives that morning just as each of us do every day.

So?

It seems odd that you find a way to excuse anyone who deliberately, in cold blood sets out to murder such people. Indeed, the perpretators wanted to kill as many innocent people as they could in as dramatic a way as possible.

Sounds rational to me when you consider their philosophy and views that there are no civilians (a view akin to those who believe that those who "harbour"-that is, live across the street from-terrorists are as culpable as the terrorists themselves). Twisted and evil, but rational.

I'm inclined to believe that the best way to counteract this Islamist threat is to respond with greater and more sophisticated force. Bin Laden referred to choosing the faster horse. If ours is the better society, then we must demonstrably show that our horse is faster.

Are individuals or, (as some of the slathering fascists who frequent this board would posit) a people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause going to be cowed by force? You say they are irrational, yet expect a rational response to your display of force. That's a bit contradictary.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Black Dog

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure. Many Canadians supported it, but people are dumb like that. Faced with a perceived threat (no matter how inconsequential it really is), they want the security of a Big Daddy State (see: the right-wing position vis the "war on terror").

"Right-wing".....would this be the same Liberal "right-wing" that similarly interned Japanese citizens and resident aliens during WW2 in a big panic? Seems that such measures are hardly reserved for the "right-wing".

[Riverwind]

The "terrorism problem" existed long befor the invasion of Iraq, bombing of Iraq, sanctioning of Iraq, and Gulf War against Iraq. Which of these "really" pissed them off?

The question is not what created the problem in the first place (I will concede that some of the policies that created the resentments were necessary). The question is whether randomingly invading countries in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is an effective strategy. I would say it is completely ineffective for the reasons I stated. Edited July 24, 2007 by Riverwind

[Black Dog]

"Right-wing".....would this be the same Liberal "right-wing" that similarly interned Japanese citizens and resident aliens during WW2 in a big panic? Seems that such measures are hardly reserved for the "right-wing".

In this country, Liberal=/ "left wing". This has been your Canadian history moment.

[bush_cheney2004]

The question is not what created the problem in the first place (I will concede that some of the policies that created the resentments were necessary). The question is whether randomingly invading countries in the name of 'fighting terrorism' is an effective strategy. I would say it is completely ineffective for the reasons I stated.

That's fine....you have nothing but disdain for Bush's Iraq policy, which really isn't altogether different than Clinton's policy, or Bush Sr's policy. I happen to agree with VP Cheney...when handed lots of lemons...make lemonade. The West can have access to Mideast resources and geopolitical footprint with terrorism, or it can have neither of these with terrorism. This is a no brainer. PMs Blair and Howard agreed.

If Bush Sr. knew he could have invaded and occupied Iraq for four years at present costs, it would have been done in 1991, with or without "terrorism".

There will always be "terrorism". So what is your plan to achieve the impossible?

[bush_cheney2004]

In this country, Liberal=/ "left wing". This has been your Canadian history moment.

No, the point (and sarcasm) went way over your head.

Edited July 24, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Interesting....was this the same logic for the October Crisis in Canada, complete with War Measures Act and military force? Were Canadians duped?

Sure. Many Canadians supported it, but people are dumb like that. Faced with a perceived threat (no matter how inconsequential it really is), they want the security of a Big Daddy State (see: the right-wing position vis the "war on terror"). Doesn't make the threat any more real or the response any more appropriate. Which brings us to...

Forget what many Canadians thought. Trudeau's actions supported the PQ - a peaceful way to achieve the same goal.

But BD, if I ignore your insult to ordinary people, I think a show of force is sometimes a good thing. Force is the basis of government and the judicious use of force is the basis of civilized society.

In invading Iraq, the US has shown some simple, superstitious people who is boss. In invading Afghanistan, NATO has shown many people that it will stand for no nonsense.

Are individuals or, (as some of the slathering fascists who frequent this board would posit) a people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause going to be cowed by force? You say they are irrational, yet expect a rational response to your display of force. That's a bit contradictary.

I didn't say that they were irrational. I said that appeals to reason wouldn't sway them. IME, superstitious people are usually very rational. Rich Saudis typically go to both a native doctor and a western doctor for treatment. Rational people diversify and cover their bases?

It seems odd that you find a way to excuse anyone who deliberately, in cold blood sets out to murder such people. Indeed, the perpretators wanted to kill as many innocent people as they could in as dramatic a way as possible.

Sounds rational to me when you consider their philosophy and views that there are no civilians (a view akin to those who believe that those who "harbour"-that is, live across the street from-terrorists are as culpable as the terrorists themselves). Twisted and evil, but rational.

BD, I was surprised with your response here. Here's (IMV) a better line of argument.

The US itself adopted the "no civilians" argument when it dropped not one but two atomic bombs.

Truman's decision may well come back to haunt Americans.

Edited July 24, 2007 by August1991

[Riverwind]

That's fine....you have nothing but disdain for Bush's Iraq policy, which really isn't altogether different than Clinton's policy, or Bush Sr's policy. I happen to agree with VP Cheney...when handed lots of lemons...make lemonade.

What a stupid rationalization for dumb decisions. There was no need to invade Iraq and it has simply made matters worse. An outcome that was predicted by many before the invasion started.

There will always be "terrorism". So what is your plan to achieve the impossible?

There will always be crime. Does this mean the US should invade other countries to win the "war on crime"? Terrorism should be treated as a police and intelligence matter.

[Riverwind]

In invading Iraq, the US has shown some simple, superstitious people who is boss.

You got to be kidding. The general consensus in the world is that US has lost the war in Iraq. If anything, the Iraq war has given these 'superstitious people' a million more reasons to hate the US.

In invading Afghanistan, NATO has shown many people that it will stand for no nonsense.

The NATO force in Afghanistan will fail as well because there is no difference between the 'good guys' (a.k.a war lords) supported by NATO and the Taliban 'bad guys' Edited July 24, 2007 by Riverwind

[August1991]

You got to be kidding. The general consensus in the world is that US has lost the war in Iraq.

The US never killed Ho Chi Minh.

Riverwind, Saddam Hussein is dead. Western powers occupy Afghanistan. That's message enough for any superstitious, rational person.

Edited July 24, 2007 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

What a stupid rationalization for dumb decisions. There was no need to invade Iraq and it has simply made matters worse. An outcome that was predicted by many before the invasion started.

What a "stupid" response...of course there was no need...Bush and Company WANTED to invade Iraq to complete the long established (pre Bush) foreign policy of the United States...to wit...ding..dong...Saddam is dead.

What part of "Have Big Balls... Will Travel" do you not understand? The United States of America and a coalition of other nations completed a job started in 1991 (which you conceded was necessary...give me a break). Your own nation helped to bomb and strangle the poor bastards to death.

What happened to France....laughlingly lost in the shuffle (as usual).

Edited July 24, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Riverwind, Saddam Hussein is dead. Western powers occupy Afghanistan. That's message enough for any superstitious, rational person.

It sure was enough for Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi. 'Course, those FB-111's back in the 80's helped too!

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, Saddam Hussein is dead. Western powers occupy Afghanistan. That's message enough for any superstitious, rational person.

Al Queda and similar radical groups had no love for Saddam and are happy his is gone. Bin Laden attacked the US because Bin Laden wanted to depose the House of Saud and he thought the American over reaction to the attack would trigger a revolution in Saudi Arabia. That did not happen but the chaos in Iraq does nothing but help those 'superstious people' achieve their goals.