Do nothing does do harm - look at rwanda - we are responsible for a million people dying because we did nothing. The Rwandans call it the time the world forgot us.
We didn't do that. Rwandans did. Since when did it become our responsibility to babysit the rest of the world? This is part of the problem we are terrible at taking care of other peoples problems. Many of the problems exist in the first place because of our previous botched attempts to fix things or run things. In Rwanda we at least did not make the situation worse. Which is what we have done elsewhere, like in Somalia.
We could have done more in Rwanda, we certainly should have done more, but when countries like the US and the UK choose to stick their head in the sand and undermine the UN, what is there to be done. However our failure to prevent the slaughter does not make us responsible for it. That responsibility lies with the men and women of Rwanda who chose to pick up machetes and set about their neighbours.
shout2thelord said:
I think it showed us with Hitler that speaking to someone who has an aim which is against your values ie killing innocent people. you will never suceed. It was ww2 that brought peace not negotiating.
It was our failure to negotiate peace at the end of WWI which
created hitler, and the climate in which he could come to power. WWII did not create peace. No war can create peace. WWII created the cold war, and we all spent 50 years under the threat of nuclear war. Hitler was stopped by Stalin, who was arguably worse, but happened to be on our side.
Going in with a big stick just changes the scenery. Whatever you do in terms of force you always end up back at the negotiating table, either closer to a settlement, or further away.
shout2thelord said:
Once again its hard to negotiate when Hamas aim is to make Israel an Islamic state. When the end goal is destruction there will be no sucess. I guess though you are sort of right the anti christ will bring a false peace in Israel before Christ returns so i presume that will happen through negotiation.
The IRA's goal was a united Ireland free from British rule. They negotiated away from that position, and now we have peace.
FLQ wanted a free Quebec and negotiated away from that position. Now there is peace whereas before there were bombings and kidnappings.
Hamas has said it would be willing to change it's charter. However any change in Hamas has to be matched by a corresponding concession from the Israeli regime.
The goal of any terrorist group is destruction.
To say that there will be no success is just letting yourself off the the hook.
shout2thelord said:
Negotiation has its place but there is a time to use force.
I already said that there are times when force is necessary. The point is that force does not resolve anything. It brings people back to the negotiating table against a changed background. The negotiation is still key to any peace.
shout2thelord said:
You forget millitant islamists want to make the world islamic and they dont care how they do it.
Some of them do.
That doesn't really matter because they will never be successful in those aims.
What negotiation does is cut off the support for the nutters you will never change.
All terrorist organisations consist of extremists leading the way, and more moderate people funding and supporting. The key grievances are what draw the moderates to the cause. In the case of Ireland it was British aggression and brutality. In the case of Hamas it is Israeli oppression and illegal occupation. When these issues are resolved the support dries up and the extremists are left cut off from resources and support.
shout2thelord said:
since when has hamas or hezbollah stuck to a cease fire.
About as many times as Israel has!! (pretty much none but this is a two way street and both sides consistently lower the bar Israel is no better than Hamas or Hezbollah.)
shout2thlord said:
Another example is when the phillipines prime minister tried to negotiate with terrorist group Abu Sayyaf, the wanted an area that was predominately islamic to become separate, she asked if the phillipines gave them that would they stop the terrorism, they said no we wont stop until the whole of the phillipines is a Muslim state.
It is of course easy to find example when negotiation has failed. Nooone has claimed that it is 100% successful. What you will not be able to find is an example of force providing a long term solution to a terrorist threat. Not even one example. And I have already provided two examples of success from negotiation. So even if negotiation is successful one time in a hundred, that is better than the 0 out of 100 that force can lay claim to.
shout2thelord said:
Also there hasnt been a terror attack in the US since 9/11 and im pretty sure that had nothing to do with negotiation.
There weren't very many on that scale prior to 9/11. How often would you expect them?
As Assyrian rightly points out, terrorist have been busy elsewhere. We could add Glasgow to that list. Pakistan.
The fact is that as a direct result of the war on terror international terrorism has risen by a factor of thousands.
In 1999 there were 392 Terrorist attacks worldwide, 233 people were killed.
In 2000 there were 423 terrorist attacks worldwide, 405 people were killed.
In 2001 there were 355 terrorist attacks worldwide, 3295 people were killed.
In 2002 there were 195 terrorist attacks worldwide, 725 people were killed.
In 2003 there were 208 terrorist attacks worldwide, 625 people were killed.
In 2004 there were 651 terrorist attacks worldwide, 9321 people were killed.
In 2005 there were more than 11,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, more than 14,500 people were killed.
In 2006 there were more than 14,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, more than 20,000 people were killed.
In 2007 there were more than 14,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, more than 22,000 people were killed.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2420.htm
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/20109.pdf
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/33771.htm
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/2004nctcchronology.pdf
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2005nctcannexfinal.pdf
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2006nctcannexfinal.pdf
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2007nctcannexfinal.pdf
This graph gives you a visual idea of the scale we are talking about. (you need to click on it!)
(Sorry about the quality - had to get it into some kind of file CF would accept and bitmap became my option!)
2003 was when we invaded Iraq. Between then and 2006 terrorism rose by 6730% and has yet to show any decrease. The next report will be due in April 2009 and should show a decrease based on the awakening councils in Iraq and Al Sadr's decision to continue his ceasefire. However that is more than 60,000 deaths which are in the main due to us following the policy you espouse of using force against terrorists, despite the fact that it has never worked and never will.
This is what I mean about doing nothing meaning that we at least do no harm.