Terrorists are generally educated and comfortable

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was sloppy in his presentation, but he could have a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably doesn't have a point but let's continue.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the terrorists have grievances that have to do with the West making conditions in Muslim countries unbearably poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

To follow Mr. Edwards "logic" he writes the following:

Trade policies affect jobs and wages here and throughout the world.

The implication is that U.S. trade policies are a root cause of global poverty. In regards to the Middle East how is that so?

Anyway later Edwards is specific on a program to end global poverty:

As president, I will lead a worldwide effort to extend primary education to millions of children in the developing world by fully funding the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015. The U.S. will do its part by bringing education to 23 million children in poor countries, and we will ask our allies to step up and do the rest. It's not just good for our security; it's good for theirs.

Second, we will support preventive health care in the developing world.

Women and children bear the burden of poverty and disease in the developing world. Women in our poorest countries have a 10% chance of dying during childbirth. More than 10 million children die each year from preventable diseases. Many of these diseases are preventable with clean water and basic sanitation or affordable immunizations.

As president, I will convene a worldwide summit on low-cost investments in clean drinking water and sanitation. Under my plan, the U.S. will increase its investment in clean water six-fold.

Third, we can get to the root of global poverty by increasing opportunity, political opportunity and economic opportunity. Democratic rights allow poor citizens to force their countries to create more progressive laws, fight oppression and demand economic stability. Economic initiatives like microfinance and micro-insurance can spark entrepreneurship, allowing people to transform their own lives.

And fourth, I would appoint an individual in the White House, reporting directly to me, with the rank of a Cabinet member, to oversee all of our efforts to fight global poverty. Despite its importance to our national security, the United States still lacks a comprehensive strategy to fight global poverty. We need to embrace the vision of John F. Kennedy, who recognized that "the Nation's interest and the cause of political freedom require" American efforts to lift up the world's poor.


I have my doubts that this initiative will put the world on course to ending poverty or significantly reducing it for that matter. It seems to me that the economies in the middle east where problems exist are basically poor because of govenment policies in those countries. For instance why is per capita GDP so low in Saudi Arabia? Is this due to U.S. policies or Saudi Arabian policies?


Almost all of them are upset at the Palestinian situation for example.

Hasn't a thing to do with the reasons for poorly performing economies in the Middle East.



[ QUOTE ]
The ones who actually perform the terrorists acts aren't the poorest ones, but that doesn't mean that the reason they are making the attacks is because of the awful socioeconomic situations in Muslim countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Political exploitation IMO.


[ QUOTE ]
If there is a perceived attack by the West on Islamic countries to "keep them down", some Muslims who are better off and radicalized might believe it is necessary to protect their "Muslim brothers".

[/ QUOTE ]


How is the U.S. keeping them down?

Anyway here's an economic synopsys of some countries in the middle east that have been identified with supporting terrorism.

Saudi Arabia

Yeman


Egypt


Syria


Iran



Take a look at the synopsys for property rights in all of these. To blame this on the United States is stupid for lack of a better word.

Ranking for All Countries

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to defend Edwards policies, because I'm not familiar with them. And I'm not saying that the US is necessarily responsible for the poor situations in most Muslim countries. This doesn't change the fact that terrorists perceive that the West is harming Muslim nations. They explicitly state as much.

Also, my response stated that it doesn't matter what the local conditions are. I don't doubt that many terrorists come from countries that are doing fine for themselves. Many Muslims believe themselves to be inextricably linked to ALL Muslims worldwide. Why are the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq Saudi?

If you don't mind me asking, why do YOU think that terrorists are carrying out these attacks if they aren't some combination of power, politics, and money?

[/ QUOTE ]

First you write that Edwards could have a point which is more or less defending Edwards statement. I go over his policies to get to the point Edwards is making and how Edwards is apparently addressing the problem of the link between global poverty vs. radical islamist terrorist attacks. Then you state you don't want to defend Edwards. Ok.

Then you make the following statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the terrorists have grievances that have to do with the West making conditions in Muslim countries unbearably poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I want you to back this statement up? How is the West making conditions in Muslim countries unbearably poor? Particularly those countries where problems with radical islamic terrorism in the Middle East exist. I point out that several countries have economies that basically don't support economic growth, full employment, property rights, etc. Basically stating that conditions in those countries is due to the economic policies of the governments of those countries not the U.S. The awful socioeconomic conditions that you refer to are due to the way the governments of those countries operate. Then you seemingly backtrack and change the subject to why there are Arabs that hate the United States. My answer is that there are a lot of reasons. Perhaps some valid, perhaps some not. I think it's fairly clear that Saudi's fighting in Iraq isn't all about hating the United States but yes alot of it is. Do you think the Saudi's fighting in Iraq will lay down their arms when the U.S. leaves? I don't.

As to your last question. It is about power, politics and money. But that doesn't mean that Edwards idea is right, it doesn't mean that perceptions of economic oppression by the U.S. are right either.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

First you write that Edwards could have a point which is more or less defending Edwards statement. I go over his policies to get to the point Edwards is making and how Edwards is apparently addressing the problem of the link between global poverty vs. radical islamist terrorist attacks. Then you state you don't want to defend Edwards. Ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edwards could have a point with regard to our policies having an effect in the world and that this most probably impacts the amount of support for Islamic extremist terrorists. Just because I concede that he could have diagnosed part of the problem doesn't mean that his solution is necessarily correct.

So yes, I say Edwards could have a point and I don't know much about his policies so I don't want to defend them. I was initially responding to a short paragraph of his that you quoted, you didn't include his whole speech.

[ QUOTE ]

Then you make the following statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the terrorists have grievances that have to do with the West making conditions in Muslim countries unbearably poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I want you to back this statement up? How is the West making conditions in Muslim countries unbearably poor?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not necessarily unbearably poor, but perhaps just unbearable. I also stated that it doesn't matter much if the West is actually producing these conditions as long as the extremists perceive us to be the cause.

In any case, let us take the Palestinian example. We back Israel. A lot. Israel has been guilty of numerous transgressions against the Palestinian people (and the Lebanese for that matter). Many Muslims think that the only reason Israel is allowed to do these things is because we back them at every turn. Therefore they perceive the U.S. as part of the problem and we almost assuredly are.

[ QUOTE ]

Particularly those countries where problems with radical islamic terrorism in the Middle East exist. I point out that several countries have economies that basically don't support economic growth, full employment, property rights, etc. Basically stating that conditions in those countries is due to the economic policies of the governments of those countries not the U.S. The awful socioeconomic conditions that you refer to are due to the way the governments of those countries operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many of those governments are in place because of previous U.S. backing? And I never said that it's all our fault, but our sanctions and dealings with governments have consequences around the world. I don't think this is controversial.

[ QUOTE ]

Then you seemingly backtrack and change the subject to why there are Arabs that hate the United States. My answer is that there are a lot of reasons. Perhaps some valid, perhaps some not. I think it's fairly clear that Saudi's fighting in Iraq isn't all about hating the United States but yes alot of it is. Do you think the Saudi's fighting in Iraq will lay down their arms when the U.S. leaves? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, they have a big stake in what happens in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]

As to your last question. It is about power, politics and money. But that doesn't mean that Edwards idea is right, it doesn't mean that perceptions of economic oppression by the U.S. are right either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was simply pointing out that just because you don't agree with Edwards's policies doesn't mean that he hasn't correctly identified one of the problems in the whole situation.

I think it's quite possible that we could "win hearts and minds" if we provide humanitarian aid. Why do you think Hamas got so much backing? They provided a lot of goods and services to the Palestinian people and so they got elected. They were smart about their actions and garnered a lot of support. We probably won't get the same amount of support because we aren't widely trusted, we aren't Muslim, etc. but it could work.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

One of the core purposes of government is to protect private property of its citizens. An American oil company was strong-armed out of its assets. Every American citizen that own stock in that company had its propery stolen by the Saudi government. This is a classic case where the govt needs to step up and take military action. When PRIVATE American merchantmen where being attacked by the Barbary pirates, Jefferson sent the Navy and marines to attack them......without congressional approval. So the marines have a tradition of protecting American lives and PROPERTY of private companies...

Harry Truman is just a first class p****. This image of him being a democratic tough guy is complaete bull****. His modis operindi was taking the easy way it. He did so in the 'Pearl Harbor' like surprise attack by the Chi-Coms. He did so when the USSR shot down American planes in the Korean War, and he did so with Saudia Arabia....

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And I want you to back this statement up? How is the West making conditions in Muslim countries unbearably poor? Particularly those countries where problems with radical islamic terrorism in the Middle East exist. I point out that several countries have economies that basically don't support economic growth, full employment, property rights, etc. Basically stating that conditions in those countries is due to the economic policies of the governments of those countries not the U.S. The awful socioeconomic conditions that you refer to are due to the way the governments of those countries operate. Then you seemingly backtrack and change the subject to why there are Arabs that hate the United States. My answer is that there are a lot of reasons. Perhaps some valid, perhaps some not. I think it's fairly clear that Saudi's fighting in Iraq isn't all about hating the United States but yes alot of it is. Do you think the Saudi's fighting in Iraq will lay down their arms when the U.S. leaves? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm going to continue in this thread since it got started in SMP (and if iron asked to have the thread moved here just so he could delete the OP then that is so LOL).

There is no way the U.S. holds down Moslems economically. However anyone has to acknowledge that the conditions that so many who live in refugee camps have experienced for *generations now* have to be a breeding ground for discontent and violence. Now of course the radical moslems and their supporters like to blame Israel for "appropriating" the land of the grandfathers of those living in the camps today, and the U.S. for supporting Israel. But the plain fact is that Israel is never giving up its pre-1967 borders and that the mid-east would be a nuclear wasteland before that happened.

So the Islamic world, instead of funding terrorists and attacks on the U.S., and fighting among themselves, should use their oil riches to help those refugees by slowly resettling those so-willing to the oil rich Moslem countries where they can have a fresh start and good jobs to provide for their families. Sure Saudi Arabia and other countries spend a lot on social programs in the mid-east, but that is only giving the refugees a fish for a day instead of both teaching them to fish and providing them a pond to fish in. Instead those in the oil rich countries live lives of luxury and fund terrorism, either overtly or covertly. Unless someone can show proof to the contrary, it would seem that the Saudis have spent more money on paying the families of homocide bombers than they have in relocating those families to better areas.

It is clear that Saudi Arabia and other oil rich countries depend on a lot of foreign workers, many if not most of whom are non-Moslems. So why not just resettle refugees from camps in Lebanon and the Gaza to do that work instead of non-Moslem foreigners? Perhaps it is because they would rather buy U.S. gov't bonds to earn money with, in seeming contravention of the Koranic prohibitions on usury (what is a bond if not a loan at interest?), and because they would feel bad about mis-treating those foreign workers if they were Moslem, which according to liberal Human Rights Watch they don't with regard to non-Moslem foreign workers.


edit: I though I was replying in the NUTs thread but since I referenced adios' post I'll leave it here.

[dlv54]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the core purposes of government is to protect private property of its citizens. An American oil company was strong-armed out of its assets. Every American citizen that own stock in that company had its propery stolen by the Saudi government. This is a classic case where the govt needs to step up and take military action. When PRIVATE American merchantmen where being attacked by the Barbary pirates, Jefferson sent the Navy and marines to attack them......without congressional approval. So the marines have a tradition of protecting American lives and PROPERTY of private companies...

Harry Truman is just a first class p****. This image of him being a democratic tough guy is complaete bull****. His modis operindi was taking the easy way it. He did so in the 'Pearl Harbor' like surprise attack by the Chi-Coms. He did so when the USSR shot down American planes in the Korean War, and he did so with Saudia Arabia....

[/ QUOTE ]

taking your first sentence w/ respect to the core purpose of gov't, and assume for the sake of argument that saudi arabia nationalized the oil fields to benefit its citizens (or take a central american country that attempted to take real property from united fruit to benefit it's citizens - again assume this for the sake of the argument) then isn't the country that does that doing exactly that core purpose itself (put another way, who says that that land in some central american country belongs to united fruit? is it that way b/c the US says so?) or do you mean that is the core function of the us's govt ?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[b]As president, I will lead a worldwide effort to extend primary education to millions of children in the developing world by fully funding the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015. The U.S. will do its part by bringing education to 23 million children in poor countries, and we will ask our allies to step up and do the rest. It's not just good for our security; it's good for theirs.



[/ QUOTE ]

Great... now our tax dollars can go to funding the "I hate America" classes. Hooray Edwards!

[gimmickthistime]

my man had quite a laugh over your answer says thanks for the laugh. [ QUOTE ]
An American oil company was strong-armed out of its assets. Every American citizen that own stock in that company had its propery stolen by the Saudi government.

[/ QUOTE ] your arguments are full of holes and dripping water. what is an american company anyway? what if the partners of aramco were registered in delaware but actually owned by three foreign families? what if the american ownership is less than 50%? what if the managers are americans and the managers and workers all foreign what then? or vice versa?

you would send the marines to protect the assets of toyota usa in venezuela? then what about a venezuela company whichhas a factory in texas is it getting marine protection too??

as soon we examine closer your ''argument'' it breaks down.

[ QUOTE ]
When PRIVATE American merchantmen where being attacked by the Barbary pirates, Jefferson sent the Navy and marines to attack them......

[/ QUOTE ] it was the pasha of tripoli who started hostilities first against the united states my friend.

and jefferson ended up payting sixtythousand dollars RANSOM anyway or didnt you know this?? [ QUOTE ]
without congressional approval.

[/ QUOTE ]wrong wrong wrong Although the U.S. Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." see entry

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
It will take an act of nuclear terrorism (hopefully in a heavily democratic city) to anger Americans into the ruthlessness necessary to crush terrorism....

[/ QUOTE ]
Classy.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
Aramco was a joint Arab-American company which developed the Saudi oil fields. The 50% American ownership was taken via nationalization (stolen) by the Saudis. Like most nationalization attempts. The company is offered pennies on the dollar and told they can take the offer or lose it all

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a risk all businesses take when they go overseas. One of the times the companies "didn't take it" was in Iran in 1951 and our CIA overthrew their government and put in our guy the Shah--we know how well that turned out for us today.

Disclaimer: father worked for Aramco/Saudi Aramco.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aramco was a joint Arab-American company which developed the Saudi oil fields. The 50% American ownership was taken via nationalization (stolen) by the Saudis. Like most nationalization attempts. The company is offered pennies on the dollar and told they can take the offer or lose it all

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a risk all businesses take when they go overseas. One of the times the companies "didn't take it" was in Iran in 1951 and our CIA overthrew their government and put in our guy the Shah--we know how well that turned out for us today.

Disclaimer: father worked for Aramco/Saudi Aramco.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this any different than the love it or leave it argument that is so often criticized around here?