| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Soros: Our "war" on terror breeds terrorists, and a vicious cycle of violence |
| 2004-04-04 |
| LATimes - requires reg., so I’m posting it all - what an asshole, and he’d be whispering in Kerry’s ear in the oval office....another reason to vote for W By George Soros, George Soros heads Soros Fund Management and is the founder of a global network of foundations dedicated to supporting open societies. His most recent book is "The Bubble of American Supremacy." The Bush administration is in the habit of waging personal vendettas against those who criticize its policies, but bit by bit the evidence is accumulating that the invasion of Iraq was among the worst blunders in U.S. history. personal vendettas like the MoveOn ads? Or the NAACP ads? What about the spew coming from you, George? If the administration cannot recognize and admit its mistakes, it cannot correct its policies. to the "correct" policies which you subscribe to? War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. The metaphor suited the purposes of the administration because it invoked our military might. But military actions require an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result, the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states like Afghanistan that are harboring terrorists, not at pursuing the terrorists themselves. The Taliban wouldn’t give them up => they pay the price Imagine for a moment that Sept. 11 had been treated as a crime against humanity. We would have pursued Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan (hopefully with more success), but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we today have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear, getting soldiers killed in the process. which bothers George not one bit, I bet This does not mean that we should not use military means to capture and bring terrorists to justice when appropriate. But to protect ourselves against terrorism, we need precautionary measures, awareness and intelligence gathering — all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Declaring war on the very people we need to enlist against terrorism is a huge mistake. We are bound to create some innocent victims, and the more of them there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into the next perpetrators. On Sept. 11, the United States was the victim of a heinous crime, and the whole world expressed spontaneous and genuine sympathy. Since then, though we Americans are loath to admit it, the war on terrorism has claimed more innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq than were lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The comparison is rarely made in the U.S.: American lives are valued differently from the lives of foreigners, but the distinction is less obvious to people abroad. The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush administration is more likely to bring about a permanent state of war than an end to terrorism. Terrorists are invisible; therefore, they will never disappear. They will continue to provide a convenient pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy by military means. That, in turn, will continue to generate resistance, setting up a vicious circle of escalating violence. The important thing to remember about terrorism is that it is a reflexive phenomenon. Its impact and development depend on the actions and reactions of the victims. If the victims react by turning into perpetrators, terrorism triumphs in the sense of engendering more and more violence. That is what the fanatically militant Islamists who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks must have hoped to achieve. By allowing a "war" on terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing straight into the terrorists’ hands: They — not we — are setting our priorities. The United States is the most powerful country on Earth. While it cannot impose its will on the world, nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without its leadership or at least active participation. The United States has a greater degree of discretion in deciding the shape of the world than anybody else. Other countries don’t have a choice: They must respond to U.S. policy. This imposes a unique responsibility on the United States: Our nation must concern itself with the well-being of the world. The United States is the only country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require collective action: preserving peace, assuring economic progress, protecting the environment and so on. Fighting terrorism and controlling weapons of mass destruction also fall into this category. By using the war on terror as a pretext for asserting our military supremacy, we are embarking on an escalating spiral of terrorist/ counterterrorist violence. If instead we were to set an example of cooperative behavior, we could not only alleviate poverty, misery and injustice in the world, but also gain support for defending ourselves against terrorism. We will be the greatest beneficiaries if we do so. George Soros - puppeteer behind the 527’s running ads against W....lovely |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #12 RWV - Lol! Not Brussels? Lol! Excellent observation! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 8:53:09 PM |
| #11 Soros' currency speculation precipitated a general collapse of Asian currencies in 97, a crime against humanity that caused untold suffering in Thailand, Malaysa, Korea, Indonesia, et. al. I think that he should be tried in Jakarta for his perfidy. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-04-04 8:50:59 PM |
| #10 George could give up, say 6 billion to make the world better, but he won't. Another who talks a good game. As GOC says, "Write a check!" What George fails to realize is that terrorists are a finite bunch, 9 months to breed and at least 5 years to indoctrinate. Which St. Corrie helped. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-04-04 7:40:38 PM |
| #9 Soros: Our "war" on terror breeds terrorists, and a vicious cycle of violence Yeah, right. Just like sex education increases teen pregnancy rates and driver's ed classes cause more automobile accidents. The one guaranteed way to breed more terrorists is not killing them quickly enough. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-04-04 6:31:42 PM |
| #8 The thing that bothers me about this guy is the way is he is trying to "buy" this election through his 527 agencies et al. His sponsoring of anti-war and active left activivties do nothing for his cause among most Americans. Eventually more will be heard of this guy. Just don't count on any real investigative reporting from the liberal press. Where oh where are you Edward R Murrow. |
| Posted by: Bill Nelson 2004-04-04 5:03:53 PM |
| #7 That'd be righteous, Barbara! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 5:01:47 PM |
| #6 Or crooked and stupid, Dave D. I'll tell you what, Georgy-Porgy - Let's drop you down in Gaza and make sure they know you're a Jew, and see if you change your mind in the few seconds you remain alive. Wotta maroon. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-04 4:57:20 PM |
| #5 Well of course it could be that he's not stupid, just crooked... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-04 4:21:44 PM |
| #4 Oops - I overlapped with you Dave... and after reading your eloquest fisk post, I take it back: Soros IS a total moronic asshole... who also happens to be an economic idiot savant. ;-> |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 3:46:26 PM |
| #3 I'm always amazed when someone who is otherwise obviously intelligent, in Soros' case playing money markets and casually destroying the economies of 2 or 3 small countries before he's even had breakfast, can be so fucking clueless about Islam. And politics. And people. And life. I'm feeling generous this morning so I'll suggest that old George isn't a total moronic asshole - he's merely an economic idiot savant. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 3:40:57 PM |
| #2 "Imagine for a moment that Sept. 11 had been treated as a crime against humanity. We would have pursued Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan (hopefully with more success),..." Is there, uh, some reason you believe you would have had more success?? This is precisely the policy Bill Clinton followed for eight years, and the biggest indications of its "success" were the 9/11 attacks themselves. ",...but we would not have invaded Iraq." And would have forfeited a major strategic advantage in carrying the WoT forward. It isn't too hard, George, to figure out a myriad of ways in which invading Iraq helps our position; I can list at least 35 of them. Is there some reason you can't think of even one? "But to protect ourselves against terrorism, we need precautionary measures, awareness and intelligence gathering — all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Declaring war on the very people we need to enlist against terrorism is a huge mistake." Oooooh, I see: let's not make the jihadis angry at us. Well guess what, George: they're already hopping mad at America, and have been--by their own declaration--at war with us for at least the last third of a century. And getting tough with troublesome regimes and demanding their cooperation, instead of begging for it, isn't going to make them angrier. As the French say, it is pour encourager les autres. Quaddafi sure seems to have gotten the message. "On Sept. 11, the United States was the victim of a heinous crime, and the whole world expressed spontaneous and genuine sympathy." That wasn't sympathy, Georgie: it was something called schadenfreude. It means that they were happy to see us down on our knees and gasping for air after having been dealt a surprise kick in the balls by dirty little ragheads. Once we started fighting back, it wasn't fun anymore. We will never get genuine sympathy from the rest of the world, George; you may as well grow up and get used to that fact. "The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush administration is more likely to bring about a permanent state of war than an end to terrorism." No state of war is permanent, unless you are too afraid to fight it to a conclusion. It is utterly, entirely, a matter of will. Bush has that will. Your kind do not. "The important thing to remember about terrorism is that it is a reflexive phenomenon." I'm sure you find some sort of psychological comfort in the notion that we "cause" Islamic terrorism, George, but that's just a childish delusion. I, like every other American, have done my duty by asking myself, "Why do they hate us so much?" And the answer is, they hate us because they are fucked-up savages caught in the grip of a stone-age death cult. Kind of like those loonies in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." "Its impact and development depend on the actions and reactions of the victims." That's right: if we kill enough of them, they'll lose interest in killing us. And then this war will stop. That's not too hard to understand, is it? "Our nation must concern itself with the well-being of the world. The United States is the only country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require collective action: preserving peace, assuring economic progress, protecting the environment and so on." That's what we're doing, George; that's what America always does--instead of just talking about doing those things--when you people are kept away from the reins of power. "By using the war on terror as a pretext for asserting our military supremacy, we are embarking on an escalating spiral of terrorist/ counterterrorist violence." Oh, quit that damned neurotic hand-wringing. You're disgusting. There isn't going to be any "spiral of violence", because we're going to kill all the little bastards. "If instead we were to set an example of cooperative behavior, we could not only alleviate poverty, misery and injustice in the world, but also gain support for defending ourselves against terrorism." All we gain by pretending the world is Sesame Street is what we gained throughout the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency: the utter contempt of the entire world. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-04 3:36:21 PM |
| #1 So George wants to continue the failed policies of Clinton and Clarke... How many have those failed 'policies' killed again? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-04-04 3:20:56 PM |