Too bad the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, Paris attacks, Brussels attacks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc don't follow the same belief system. Good luck negotiating with them.
Isn't that the same point that Kuipers talks about with:
> However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways.
Saying that negotiation with terrorists is a lost cause is true to an extent, but Kuipers doesn't advocate standing back and doing nothing at all. Acting overtly hawkish doesn't help anyone either.
Good point. The question is how do we deal with this extremism. The people that are involved in this clearly don't value any human life (even their own) and it seems clear that certain governments use this fanaticism to their advantage (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). As of this moment, a lot of "military" funding goes toward trying to answer this question. It isn't all about building bombs and other weapons, but also in detecting those involved in terrorist activities and putting a stop to it before they can carry out their plans. I will never support cutting funding to such research.
Why would you be interested? Why debate anything? Just jump in and make a comment and then leave because that is the way it should be. I mean that is how all things accomplished right?
The point is that believing that all problems can be solved in non-violent ways is unrealistic. The terrorists who will gladly murder any man, woman, or child to further whatever the hell it is that they are trying to further have never and will never just stop being violent to negotiate. The only way to deal with people who are that radical is through violent means.
Oh and maybe you should get your facts straight. America did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. America attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in retaliation. America attacked Iraq because in theory there were WMDs there (I will not argue the legitimacy of that because clearly that wasn't the case and in hindsight that was an awful move).
Your argument falls apart precisely because of the violent and boneheaded nature of American governments. America unleashes its military without thinking of the consequences and there is no excuse for it.
So do tell, how would you have dealt with the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11? Just like every good liberal you have said I am wrong without offering an alternative.
Do you even remember that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, among other things? America's disastrous history of foreign intervention IS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TO DATE. Don't put your noses where they don't belong and try to learn from your many mistakes. That's all it takes.
Who gets to decide where the US's nose belongs? I am with you that we should never support these knuckleheads like Bin Laden (which we are doing a-freaking-gain with the Syrian resistance), but it certainly has felt a lot like damned if you do, damned if you don't with the US. We get involved in some way and everyone yells that we shouldn't be and if we don't get involved everyone yells that we aren't helping.
Saying that "America's disastrous history of foreign intervention IS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TO DATE" is pretty silly. I bet most of Asia and Europe are pretty darn happy that we intervened during WWI and WWII and I'd be willing to bet that most South Koreans are pretty happy that we intervened during the Korean War lest they be subjects of that little, fat megalomanic Kim Jong Un. Do you disagree with those interventions? If so well then I guess we are done here because we will never agree on anything. If not, then what is the deciding factor on when to get involved and when not to get involved?
The fact of the matter is that we rely on oil from the middle east and we are always going to get involved there because it is in our national interests. Until we have zero reliance on foreign oil that isn't going to change. It would certainly be wonderful if everyone just kept to themselves and we didn't get involved with anything, but that isn't practical. The problems in that area of the world really have very little to do with the US. They have been fighting in the middle east for all of recorded history. Certainly longer than the US has been a nation. Our involvement hasn't helped anything, but I am increasingly of the opinion that nothing will help things over there.
> However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways.
Saying that negotiation with terrorists is a lost cause is true to an extent, but Kuipers doesn't advocate standing back and doing nothing at all. Acting overtly hawkish doesn't help anyone either.