Euroweenie Hans Blix - "I think we still overestimate the danger of terror"

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Blix: Global terror not so bad

"I think we still overestimate the danger of terror," Blix told BBC television.
"There are other things that are of equal, if not greater, magnitude, like the environmental global risks," he said without being more specific.

lets see - two airliners full of fuel take down world trade center - explosive force equivalent to 1 kiloton Bomb,
3000+ dead
$100 billion in direct economic cost
1 trillion in indirect costs (increased security, etc)

I must disagree with Mssr. Blix

is it fair to assume that Sen. Kerry would agree with Blix? I believe he would.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Back in the 1970s, John Kerry said that the United States should only go to war under the auspices of the UN. Does he still feel that way?

BTW, Blix is Swedish, so I doubt that he understands what he's talking about, hence his reference to the environment.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
That was only 3000 people; we've lost far more in worse conflicts. This is a version of combat used by underpowered political groups to achieve their ends - nothing new. I'm surprised that so many of you still have your panties in a bunch.

To that end, however, I would ask you - what would you do to combat asymmetric warfare, HS?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Orsorum
That was only 3000 people; we've lost far more in worse conflicts. This is a version of combat used by underpowered political groups to achieve their ends - nothing new. I'm surprised that so many of you still have your panties in a bunch.

To that end, however, I would ask you - what would you do to combat asymmetric warfare, HS?

Only 3000 people? Yet when one arab is killed by the Israeli Army there's an international outcry. You're a hypocrite, to say the least. Not to sound bias here, but those 3000 were far more valuable than many other people like you.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Dari

Only 3000 people? Yet when one arab is killed by the Israeli Army there's an international outcry. You're a hypocrite, to say the least. Not to sound bias here, but those 3000 were far more valuable than many other people like you.

How am I a hypocrite? I didn't take September 11th lightly, Dari, it affected me deeply; however, I'm not reactionary enough to think that this is some new-fangled tactic by the evil-doers. Do you want me to get all emotional, say "Let's go kill the evil A-rabs!", support our president blindly? Maybe go crack a few jokes about the French and the Swedes?

I may be an ass, but I'm not stupid and I'm not one easily swayed by my emotion.

Again, I ask you, what would we do to decrease the use of asymmetric warfare?
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
That was only 3000 people
the casual callousness of that statement is shocking.

When the potential loss of life and negative economic impact on our society is so great, i believe this threat rises well above that of "police action", and should be dealt with militarily. I would therefore place my trust in the people who run the military to know how best to prosecute this action or war.

Ultimately, I agree with Victor Hansen who stated that if we stay the course in Iraq, and introduce democracy to the middle east. that in 50 years, this will be viewed as one of the greatest accomplishments in american foreign policy. This approach will attack the "root source" of this terrorism, and transform the middle east.

 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
That was only 3000 people
the casual callousness of that statement is shocking.

When the potential loss of life and negative economic impact on our society is so great, i believe this threat rises well above that of "police action", and should be dealt with militarily. I would therefore place my trust in the people who run the military to know how best to prosecute this action or war.

Ultimately, I agree with Victor Hansen who stated that if we stay the course in Iraq, and introduce democracy to the middle east. that in 50 years, this will be viewed as one of the greatest accomplishments in american foreign policy.

Good, I'm glad I stimulated a reaction. I don't take those peoples' lives lightly, HS, and I grieved for them just as everyone else. However, to hold that number up as some sort of scorecard or justification for certain actions is inane.

Who are the people who know how to best run the military? And what does Iraq have to do with September 11th? (corrected myself, asymmetric warfare IS being used in Iraq at the moment)
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Dari

Only 3000 people? Yet when one arab is killed by the Israeli Army there's an international outcry. You're a hypocrite, to say the least. Not to sound bias here, but those 3000 were far more valuable than many other people like you.

How am I a hypocrite? I didn't take September 11th lightly, Dari, it affected me deeply; however, I'm not reactionary enough to think that this is some new-fangled tactic by the evil-doers. Do you want me to get all emotional, say "Let's go kill the evil A-rabs!", support our president blindly? Maybe go crack a few jokes about the French and the Swedes?

I may be an ass, but I'm not stupid and I'm not one easily swayed by my emotion.

Again, I ask you, what would we do to decrease the use of asymmetric warfare?


Asymmetric warfare is all that a terrorist has. We can decrease by putting massive pressure on the states that sponsor/harbor terrorists. President Bush has done just that. Now, they're coming out of the woodwork professing their innocence. The Afghan invasion has the terrorists based there on the run. The Iraqi campaign has Syria and Libya re-thinking their terrorist or WMDs connections. In Iran, you have the ayatollahs professing their interests in peaceful nuclear technology. Even in North Korea, you have a nation that doesn't want to be isolated anymore.

To be short, massive pressure and the enforcement of existing and new international directives against such rogue elements will drive the purpotrators (sic?) of asymmetrical warfare either to wash their hands of their sins or drive them out of business.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
we lost 3,000 due to a terrorist attack and we lost four times that number due to a change in weather patterns; the man has a point.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
we lost 3,000 due to a terrorist attack and we lost four times that number due to a change in weather patterns; the man has a point.

you can't control the weather. however, if you try to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, your very response will give the terrorists more resolve.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
well sure we can't control the weather, but we can prepare for such changes. as for your comments of treating "terrorism as a law enforcement issue", i don't even understand where that came from.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Asymmetric warfare is all that a terrorist has. We can decrease by putting massive pressure on the states that sponsor/harbor terrorists. President Bush has done just that. Now, they're coming out of the woodwork professing their innocence. The Afghan invasion has the terrorists based there on the run. The Iraqi campaign has Syria and Libya re-thinking their terrorist or WMDs connections. In Iran, you have the ayatollahs professing their interests in peaceful nuclear technology. Even in North Korea, you have a nation that doesn't want to be isolated anymore.

To be short, massive pressure and the enforcement of existing and new international directives against such rogue elements will drive the purpotrators (sic?) of asymmetrical warfare either to wash their hands of their sins or drive them out of business.
That's it? I'm afraid that's only a start, considering terror cells have proven that they can exist anywhere and in any country without the host country's knowledge. Hell, they were in the U.S. for years, probably still are. Pressuring nations only goes so far . . .
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
facts
1) Al Qaeda has declared war on the U.S.
2) The "Axis of Evil" states, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, are/were all seeking to develop nuclear weapons (apparently Libya should have been part of the Axis as well)
3) Al Qaeda was speaking with Iraqi goverment officials, certainly with Iranian officials.
4) Missile as well as nuclear technology was being transferred to the middle east from N. Korea.
5) Terrorist activities against the U.S have been escalating in audacity and effect over the past 10 years.

if you take a very concrete view of U.S. security - only respond to unequivocally documented, imminent (what ever that supposedly means) threat...you would then naturally expect over time to see Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea all become nuclear capable. Do you deny this eventuality?

Once these countries go nuclear, i believe it would be most likely that Al-Qaeda would make an effort to acquire a weapon from one of them. Why not? Do you deny this possibilty?

Once Al Qaeda carries out a mass casualty attack..now what? Have the police dust for finger prints and try to prosecute the perps like they did with the first Trade Tower bombing?

Faced with this prospect, what to do in an effort to preemptively prevent this from happening.

Disrupt the Axis of Evil...that is the obvious recourse...and the prosecution of this task should be left to the military and the military planners. To date, Libya has been prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, iraq is no longer in a position to pursue such weapons, Iran has divulged more information about it nuclear program than ever before, and N. Korean exports of nuclear/missle technology are probably being scrutinized like never before.
I believe we are better off in the long term because of this, and that WMD threats against us have been reduced.



Now, if you don't believe in the Axis of Evil, if you don't believe these countries have any ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, if you don't believe that these countries would ever supply this weaponry to Al Qaeda, if you believe that Al Qaeda would ever use such weapons against us, then your right and i'm wrong.


It's a complex problem with lots of players...and sometimes it's hard to tell our enemies from our friends..
AP: Pakistan Knew of Nuclear Black Market

doing nothing until we are attacked again doesn't seem like the wisest route to follow.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
we lost four times that number due to a change in weather patterns
If the Euroweenies would buy air conditioners, i'm guessing most of these deaths from heat exposure could have been prevented.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
we lost four times that number due to a change in weather patterns
If the Euroweenies would buy air conditioners, i'm guessing most of these deaths from heat exposure could have been prevented.

Wow, Euroweenie, that's maturity for you! How're you doing these days, you AmeriBastard?

Any other chic insults you want to throw out?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I'm not quite sure why HS thinks the liberal response is to "do nothing." Far from it.

Personally, I advocated going into Afghanistan post 9/11. Personally, I'm all for diplomatic and economic pressures being applied to countries who seek to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and/or harbor/support terrorists -- especially in the ME. Domestically, I'm all for using existing laws (meaning pre-Patriot Act) and law enforcement agencies to go after cells and plots within the U.S. and to secure the nation as best as possible.

What I'm against, however, is going off all half-cocked and invading a country with tenuous (and probably in the realm of virtually non-existant) ties to terrorists. Going to war is a very serious decision and we should make damn sure we have all the facts before doing so. And even, as a last resort, when we do have to prosecute a war, it will undoubtedly create more problems than it solves, require vast amounts of American cash and lives, and have long-term ramifications that are often difficult if not impossible to see immediately.

I say this, not as a primer for starting yet another "Iraq: right or wrong?" thread discussion, rather just to clarify that the "liberal response" is not so far off from the (EDIT) conservative one.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
DM - I would take care to separate, very rigidly, the conservative and neo-conservative viewpoint. There are important differences between them, and as a conservative I take offense at being lumped in with neo-conservatives.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,392
8,551
126
Personally, I'm all for diplomatic and economic pressures being applied to countries who seek to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and/or harbor/support terrorists -- especially in the ME.
yeah like those work
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Most American liberals were ready and willing to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden. But Hans Blix is right, assuming he is talking about the conflict in Iraq, which I think is a fair exegesis of his comments.

-Robert
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Well its a pretty sad day when the average American is more afraid of terrorists and terrorism, than a Euroweenie.

Blix is mostly right, ofcourse. Yes, the rest of the world should be relatively free of any added worries from terrorists.

Here in the US, after the Bush administration's foreign policy decisions (disasters)--the danger of terror aimed at us was/is certainly elevated.

The question is, was that what the Bush administration intended? Or were they just incredibly shortsighted (blinded) by their agenda?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
DM - I would take care to separate, very rigidly, the conservative and neo-conservative viewpoint. There are important differences between them, and as a conservative I take offense at being lumped in with neo-conservatives.
Right you are. I edited my message to reflect that. :)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Personally, I'm all for diplomatic and economic pressures being applied to countries who seek to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and/or harbor/support terrorists -- especially in the ME.
yeah like those work
As we're learning now, those efforts certainly kept Hussein's ass in check. :)
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
as far as i can tell, nobody is answering the questions i listed

1) If Iraq had not been invaded, would you reasonably expect over time to see Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea become nuclear capable.
2) Once these countries possess nuclear weapons, do you believe it is credible that Al-Qaeda would make an effort to acquire a weapon from them (most likely from a middle east source).
3) If Al Qaeda acquired a WMD, they would attempt to use it against the U.S. Who would you "go after" in this situation? How would you with absolute certainty where this weapon was constructed?

Yes, Pakistan is extremely worrisome...former Soviet Block countries are worrisome.

I'm all for diplomatic and economic pressures being applied to countries who seek to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and/or harbor/support terrorists -- especially in the ME
well, military force is clearly a form of diplomacy, whether you are comfortable with that premise or not, this is a historical truth. A potent argument can be made that Libya has abandoned it nuclear ambitions only because of the fear of military intervention. Certainly, Iraq is clearly out of the nuclear arms race.

Other than invading Afganistan...what are you proposing to do in order to prevent or distract Al Qaeda from attacking the U.S.? Give me concrete examples. You cannot deny that Al Qaeda is now pre-occupied with Iraq.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

What I'm against, however, is going off all half-cocked and invading a country with tenuous (and probably in the realm of virtually non-existant) ties to terrorists. Going to war is a very serious decision and we should make damn sure we have all the facts before doing so. And even, as a last resort, when we do have to prosecute a war, it will undoubtedly create more problems than it solves, require vast amounts of American cash and lives, and have long-term ramifications that are often difficult if not impossible to see immediately.

Tenuous??? Why don't you say, "ties to bin Laden" because there are CONCRETE ties to terrorism from Saddam's regime. Let me name two for you before you get your panties in a bunch: Abu Nidal and the Palestinians. The first, formerly the world's most wanted terrorist, was living in Baghdad with full knowledge of the government. He was subsequently assassinated (oh, yeah, he committed suicide with two bullets to the head...). For the second, Saddam's regime paid thousands to the families of suicide bombers after the bombers dismembered women and children in Israel. For a down and out Palestinian family, that's a fairly strong incentive to encourage one of their children to "become a martyr for Allah".

Tenuous. Right.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Tenuous??? Why don't you say, "ties to bin Laden" because there are CONCRETE ties to terrorism from Saddam's regime. Let me name two for you before you get your panties in a bunch: Abu Nidal and the Palestinians. The first, formerly the world's most wanted terrorist, was living in Baghdad with full knowledge of the government. He was subsequently assassinated (oh, yeah, he committed suicide with two bullets to the head...). For the second, Saddam's regime paid thousands to the families of suicide bombers after the bombers dismembered women and children in Israel. For a down and out Palestinian family, that's a fairly strong incentive to encourage one of their children to "become a martyr for Allah".

Tenuous. Right.

you better invade Saudi-Arabia because they are the biggest sponsors of the Palestinian suicide bombers.