Why should I believe the neo-cons?

[dlamberth]

The neo-cons military answer has not worked in Iraq. It seems that the military option that the neo-cons led us into has even radicalized Iraq. So why should I believe that the neo-cons military answer will work with the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Anyone have an answer?

.

 

[Sleeker]

"Neo-con" has lost all meaning lately.

 

[NewToLife]

The neo-cons military answer has not worked in Iraq. It seems that the military option that the neo-cons led us into has even radicalized Iraq. So why should I believe that the neo-cons military answer will work with the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Anyone have an answer?

.

I dont think you should believe them, further I think you should question their motives for propogating what is, at this point, a very obviously bad solution.

The neo-cons in the US government are not stupid.

 

[seed757]

"Neo-con" has lost all meaning lately.

Yeah your right. Recently the label "neo-fascist" seems to be more apropos.

 

[Sleeker]

"Neo" anything has lost all meaning.

 

[vipertaja]

"Neo" anything has lost all meaning.

Neo-_______ is getting so old by now.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Force has never provided a lasting solution against terrorism, and will never provide a lasting solution against terrorism.

In the vast majority of cases terrorism results because of a real or percieved (doesn't matter which) attempt by a state to enforce it's will on a certain group of people. I cannot think of any examples of a terrorist threat where this is not the case. Using military force to continue to try and enforce your will on that group of people is hardly going to fix the initial grievances and will in every circumstance rally more fighters to the cause, often radicalising those who have up until that point been more moderate.

The only solution is to deal as much as possible with the original real or percieved attempt to enforce one will above another by negotiation over whatever the issue is.

 

[vipertaja]

Force has never provided a lasting solution against terrorism, and will never provide a lasting solution against terrorism.

In fact nothing short of total extermination tends to only strengthen it,
and even doing that may breed terrorists out of people not agreeing
with the extermination.

 

[Balko]

So we are all experts on the cause of terrorism here?

 

[vipertaja]

So we are all experts on the cause of terrorism here?

Well, I think it's pretty obvious what kind of causes might lead to
terrorism, though I don't claim to know all the causes or motivations.
I believe desperation caused by real or imagined threats is effective to drive
someone to do these deeds. People don't usually wake up one day and
decide to become terrorists for no reason at all.

Or I could just blame everything on satan if you want. Would that be
productive to you?

 

[ScottishJohn]

So we are all experts on the cause of terrorism here?

Give us a terrorist group and lets find out the cause together.

Here is one:

The IRA: Cause of their existence, British occupation of Ireland and oppression of the people of Ireland.

Actually this is a good one, because after almost a century of fighting, with many casualties on both sides, it is negotiation which has brought relative peace to the area, and not force. The IRA are now fully engaged in the political process, hold seats in Westminster, and have decommissioned their armaments.

In any case you don't have to be an expert to see that the 'War on Terror' is fundamentally flawed - you just have to look at the terrorism statistics:


2000 423 international terrorist attacks, 405 killed 791 wounded.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2420.htm

2001 355 attacks, 3,547 killed and 1080 wounded

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2001/html/10235.htm

(although looking through the report you can also find other figures, none of which match the figures quoted in the subsequent year:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10289.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10290.htm
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10291.htm

2002 199 attacks, and 725 killed and 2238 wounded.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2002/html/19980.htm

2003 208 attacks, and 307 killed and 3646 wounded.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/33771.htm

After this Rice changed the report format and it becomes difficult to get the correct figures.

2004 no figures released in the new format report, however the National Counter Terrorism Centre released these figures:

2004 Total attacks 651 1907 dead, and 6704 wounded. (According to Wiki the state department stated in a press conference that the wounded figure was as high as 9300)

http://www.tkb.org/documents/Downloads/NCTC_Report.pdf

2005 no figures released in the new format report, however the National Counter Terrorism centre released these figures:

2005 Total attacks 11,111 14,602 dead, 12,505 wounded.

There are no figures released that I can find on the number of foiled attacks.

http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2005nctcannexfinal.pdf

Thes figures show a small decrease in the number of attacks up untill 2003 (the year Iraq was invaded) and from there onwards a multiplication of attacks and deaths. From a low of 199 in 2002, to 208 in 2003 to 651 in 2004 to 11,111 in 2005. A 5500% increase in 3 years.

 

[Sleeker]

Couldn't that be seen as an escalation in the War on Terror?

 

[ScottishJohn]

Couldn't that be seen as an escalation in the War on Terror?

What new initiatives did we take on in 2005? We are still sitting ducks in Iraq, and the escalation is on the side of the terrorists.

The whole point is that things are worse now than they were when we began. If Condaleeza Rice had thought that the increase in attacks was just a 'blip' or an 'escalation' in the war then why change the figures to make it more difficult to see how big a failure the War on Terror currently is.

You can't fight fire with fire. Violence begets violence. You reap what you sow. ETC ETC ETC.

Proverbs 20:3
It is a mans honor to avoid strife but every fool is quick to quarrel.

 

[Sleeker]

What new initiatives did we take on in 2005? We are still sitting ducks in Iraq, and the escalation is on the side of the terrorists.

We took on a new initiative in Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003. Iraq is now the main source of most of these attacks, which makes sense as we've been there less time than Afghanistan.

The whole point is that things are worse now than they were when we began. If Condaleeza Rice had thought that the increase in attacks was just a 'blip' or an 'escalation' in the war then why change the figures to make it more difficult to see how big a failure the War on Terror currently is.

How was it changed?

You can't fight fire with fire. Violence begets violence. You reap what you sow. ETC ETC ETC.

You can fight fire with fire. How did anybody win wars in the past? (By the way, you can literally fight forest fires with fire. Interesting tidbit there.)

 

[ScottishJohn]

We took on a new initiative in Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003. Iraq is now the main source of most of these attacks, which makes sense as we've been there less time than Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is now catching up, as it was approached in a totally half hearted way, the mistakes made by the British twice, the Soviets once, and even Alexander the great, were repeated and we are now paying for it - several British Soldiers have paid the ultimate price over the last week.

In any case you are right. We did take on a new initiative in 2001 and 2003 but not in 2005. Thise new itiatives increased the level of terrorism and is still increasing the level of terrorism, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but across the world. Your own Government have admitted that Iraq is a cause of terrorism and not a solution to it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2157116,00.html

How was it changed?

The format of the report was changed, the numbers were left out to avoid publicising the shocking mess the Bush administration were making. Follow the links I gave you and you will see.

You can fight fire with fire. How did anybody win wars in the past?

First of all, noone has fought a war against a group of people without Uniforms, without a permanent base of operations, and without any one leader before. Secondly, wars are won and lost around the negotiation table, the settlement enforced at the end of WWI nsured that WWII would take place. The settlement reached at the end of WWII has so far prevented a further war from taking place. Force is only a means of getting people back to the negotiating table. Enforcing your will on people is never successful in the long term.

(By the way, you can literally fight forest fires with fire. Interesting tidbit there.)

Well, for your sake I hope this is not a tactic used by any firefighters called to your property.

 

[Sleeker]

Afghanistan is now catching up, as it was approached in a totally half hearted way, the mistakes made by the British twice, the Soviets once, and even Alexander the great, were repeated and we are now paying for it - several British Soldiers have paid the ultimate price over the last week.

Afghanistan is pretty dang peaceful right now. There will be skirmishes for a while though.

In any case you are right. We did take on a new initiative in 2001 and 2003 but not in 2005.

So? The repercussions of 2003 have led to 2005.

Thise new itiatives increased the level of terrorism and is still increasing the level of terrorism, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but across the world.

And our rate of success at stopping terrorist attacks outside the Middle East is rising as proven by all of the reports of terrorist attack being foiled.

Your own Government have admitted that Iraq is a cause of terrorism and not a solution to it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2157116,00.html

I found this interesting though: "The figures in the State Department’s annual report on terror represented a fourfold rise compared with 2004, partly because it has adopted a broader definition of such incidents since having to withdraw data used two years ago on the ground that it was grossly understated."

First of all, noone has fought a war against a group of people without Uniforms, without a permanent base of operations, and without any one leader before.

True, but I don't see why it has much relevance.

Secondly, wars are won and lost around the negotiation table, the settlement enforced at the end of WWI nsured that WWII would take place.

Settlement? Perhaps Germany started to negotiate when the Soviets were knocking on Hitler's door. Japan at least saw some sense, however late.

The settlement reached at the end of WWII has so far prevented a further war from taking place.

It didn't prevent more war. It just stopped one.

Force is only a means of getting people back to the negotiating table. Enforcing your will on people is never successful in the long term.

And who says that this offensive won't end up on the negotiating table after Israel deals a number of blows?

Well, for your sake I hope this is not a tactic used by any firefighters called to your property.

And just so you know: "These control lines can be produced by physically removing fuel (for instance, with a bulldozer), or by "backfiring", in which small, low-intensity fires are started, using a device such as the driptorch, or pyrotechnic flares known as "fusees", to burn the flammable material in a (hopefully) controlled way. These may then be extinguished by firefighters or, ideally, directed in such a way that they meet the main fire front, at which point both fires run out of flammable material and are thus extinguished."

 

[ServantofTheOne]

at the end of the day the companies that sell the material and services to the US military adventures still make a killing. the same wealthy group of people profit by bankrolling those into office that will ensure that the money keeps rolling in.

if there was really peace in the world, america would go bankrupt. Its most valuable export is military hardware.

 

[Sleeker]

America is also adaptable.

 

[ServantofTheOne]

so was the roman empire.

 

[Sleeker]

The Roman Empire is irrelevant.