Man... I go to bed for a few hours and I come back to this! Okay... I have some points to address, so rather than quote, I'll just go through, abridged-list style:

For phantasmzombie:

1) Alright. Let's say we stop getting involved, and we had stopped getting involved for the last 50-75 years. We didn't arm the muhajideen. We didn't side with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq conflict. I'm curious as to what you think the outcome would be today, on May 3, 2011. Do you assume we'd have fewer enemies in the world? I'm genuinely curious. Also, if you're going to cherry pick two conflicts that had negative outcomes a half/a quarter century later, at least address the others that we've gotten involved in with largely positive outcomes (e.g. The Bosnian War).

2) Please tell me you're trolling by calling the coalition during the Gulf War "evil."

3) One certainly could argue that Hussein's reign of terror is a result of the American supplying him arms, but one would be ignoring literally dozens, if not hundreds of other reasons (political, religious, and downright crazy) that Hussein did what he did as the head of state in Iraq. If you're in a fist fight with someone outside a bar, and I think that you are in the right and need help, and I decide to slip you brass knuckles, my giving you the brass knuckles has nothing to do with your decision to turn around and punch everyone in the bar.

4) I get to get on my soapbox here... Being a student of terrorism (really), I can tell you without pause that "killing them left and right" (if, in fact we have been, which we haven't... take a look at the list of biggest economic contributors to the Palestinians before Hamas took over, for example) often has little to do with someone's decision to get involved with a terrorist group. There's a shitload of factors, and being traumatized by some event like a bombing (what we call "catalyst events") is often times absent. When radical Islamists say they are fighting the Americans to defend Islam/avenge deaths of their brothers/etc., it's often a post hoc justifications for their actions. Ultimately, the main reason someone becomes involved with a terrorist group- the same reason you would become involved with a book-reading club or something-- there is a social aspect, the individual has a link to the group, and the opportunity to engage. Once in the group, they're socialized to spout off all the reasons why they're involved, and they're largely bullshit propaganda taught to make the group look like martyrs and heroes rather than just guys looking for something to which to belong.

5) Getting out of the Middle East isn't a crazy idea, but not until (a) the areas where our wars caused damage are stable and (b) our allies in the region are safe or at least perfectly capable of fighting off rogue elements on their own. Our alliance with Israel should hold, but they're perfectly capable of kicking the crap out of whoever they need to.


To Methid Man:

1) The battle I'm referring to IS the battle of nerves you mention. But the Cold War was more than a staring contest. It was a satellite war where the physical battles were fought between the Soviets and others. Afghanistan is a good example. If the Soviets were able to secure land and forces beyond the USSR to the extent that they controlled the Eastern Hemisphere more than they already did, it would have been extremely difficult (and probably impossible) to avoid a physical war, most likely involving the exchange of nuclear weapons.

2) Re: Where do terrorists come from... see my answer to phantasm above. People don't become terrorists because they want to get revenge. It helps, and serves as a nice tailor-made excuse, but it's not the reality of it. If it was, you'd see a much higher percentage of individuals in countries with high indexes of perceived victimization turning to terrorism.... which just doesn't happen. Case in point: every year, Palestinian civilians are polled on their perceptions of victimization at the hands of the Israelis and their support for suicide bombing of Israeli civilians. As it turns out... people are alike all over: Palestinians blame a lot of their trouble (their screwed up infrastructure, for example) on the Israelis, and something like 70-80% of the people at least somewhat approve of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. The number of people that go on to become terrorists in any given population? Well below 0.1%. There are a ton of other factors at play than "they're pissed off we bombed them."

3) If I'm remembering correctly, DPRK never fired nukes. They fired missiles that deliver nukes over Japan. Also, if this is meant to debate the justification for War in Iraq, that's a whoooooooooole other debate- one in which I probably agree with you. (Long story short- I do believe that Saddam needed to go, and I do think that war in Iraq was probably necessary, but the stated justification for and the execution of the war was piss poor.)



Look guys, I'm no sabre-rattler or jingoistic numbnuts (most of the long-time members of the forum can vouch for this)-- I just think that the international political landscape, including the popping up of terrorist groups, is too complex to be resolved with simple solutions like moving soldiers here or there. I also think (and this is where we won't reach any common ground), that beyond military strategy, as a superpower with several allies in messy regions of the world, we have a responsibility to defend our friends when we need to. The economic or social benefits to the US may be limited, but I put a lot of stock in the goodwill offered by the US in the form of military assistance. Should that assistance be infinite? Oh hell no. But it does serve the USs purposes to maintain strategic allegiances... militarily if need be.

I should note that by "student of terrorism", I mean that I do research the psychology of terrorists and their groups. I do not mean that I study the ins and outs of how to do terrorism. That would not be a good thing.

Atma wrote:

Just heard a new OBL joke. Made me chuckle. "Excuse me, Bartender, I'll have a Bin Laden" "What's that?" "Two shots and a splash of water."

HA! ::rimshot::

Atma wrote:

Jon Stewart last night on the Daily Show talking about OBL. For some reason it starts muted.

I just watched this at work and got into trouble for laughing too loud when he said "Ya know who won't see it? Bin Laden. Because we shot out his eyes, and now he lives in a pineapple under the sea."

Izzy wrote:

Kubo wrote: I should note that by "student of terrorism", I mean that I do research the psychology of terrorists and their groups. I do not mean that I study the ins and outs of how to do terrorism. That would not be a good thing. You have been throwing out this "student of terrorism" thing in some of your posts in this thread and in no way am I trying to discredit you or question the work you have done, but before you keep using it as your reason for proving you're right just understand that there are other "student's of terrorism" out there (some who are more then students and have actual experience in the military, intelligence agencies, etc.) who disagree with your assessments.

Fair enough, but the stuff that I've talked about in the wake of my mentioning what I study are pretty well-established within the terrorism studies community. The idea that victimized people automatically become terrorists hasn't been taken seriously as a perspective since the late 80s/early 90s. That's not to say that there aren't debates about certain processes... but I wouldn't touch any of those with a 10-foot pole in these forums. The jury is just too far out on most of them, and there's not enough data to support them in either direction (the role of a country's political structure in developing terrorists, for example).

Syd Lexia wrote:

No one cares what I have to say. I feel like Osama Bin Replaced.

I care, dammit! ::pounds fists on desk:: I care!

I think it's probably the right call not to show the photo, but it was also handled in the most bumblefuck way possible.

aeonic wrote:

Kubo wrote: I think it's probably the right call not to show the photo, but it was also handled in the most bumblefuck way possible. That's my take on the matter. Didn't Leon Panetta directly state: "I don't think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public. We got bin Laden and I think we have to reveal to the rest of the world the fact that we were able to get him and kill him." ?

Yup. No less than 48 hours ago, if I'm not mistaken.

phantasmzombie wrote:

Kubo: 1. I don't know what the outcome would be if the U.S. had not gotten involved in all those internal conflicts in the middle east and other places in the last 70 years. One can only speculate. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think we would have had a lot less U.S. casualties. 2. I was not trolling, I was dead serious. I don't like the U.N. and I think we should get out of it immediately, tomorrow. 3. If I give someone a gun or a means to hurt people, and I trust them to do the right thing, and they turn around and kill and bunch of people, it makes me look like an asshole doesn't it? 4. When people from the Middle East say they want to kill us because we have been killing them for the better part of a century, when in fact, we have, I feel inclined to take them at their word. It is a lot easier to swallow than believing that people decide to become suicide bombers for the same reasons people join book clubs or because they are lonely.

1) Fair enough, I think we can actually come to some common ground here. You're probably right.

2) Common ground again! I also hate the UN and think of it as a paper tiger in most respects. One thing it is good for though, is the symbolic approval of the rest of the world. You can't really poll, so getting UN approval is a decent proxy for that. Other than that, it's mostly just good for writing strongly-worded letters.

3) It may make you look like an asshole, but it doesn't make you wrong.

4) Not sure what to tell you here-- there's twenty years of interview data to support that theory, and thinking that victimization is the primary motivator for terrorism still doesn't explain the ridiculously small proportion of people who become terrorists relative to the large proportion of those that are victimized. That's not to say that being victimized doesn't help. It certainly does. It's just not a necessary precondition. It's mostly about a link to the movement and opportunity to engage.[/quote]