What do you do when the child throwing the tantrum does not want oto listen and has stated over and over again it wants to kill you?

How do you reason with someone like that who is intent on destroying you because they think God (Allah) has ordained it?

You have only one chance, the wrong move could get you killed and everyone else with you….how do you proceed?

I’m unwilling to accept new theories without facts that back it up though. Democracies typically don’t war with each other, and can be more easily reprimanded for committing atrocities against humanity (imo only. I have nothing to back this up). That’s why I support the forced imposition of democracy on all gov’ts. The resulting fact that newly formed democracies have to do what their people want (in theory at least) is just a perk. The real goal I am supporting is no wars, and no threat of impending wars (more accurately, impending doom). A war to end war sounds like an oxymoron, but it really isn’t, if you take the time to understand it. It’s easy to make fun of though, since it clearly sounds silly (I’m not suggesting that you are doing this, just that many people do).

As for those who “…embrace an ideology that includes suicide bombing…” they all have to die, and we have to be the ones who kill them. I’m not a big believer in rehabilitation, and this is no exception. They have to die because their existence is incompatible with the existence of everyone else who isn’t a sharia abiding muslim. We have to kill them because no one else can.

The rest of the world certainly has irreconcilable differences with Islam. My only hope is that there is a ‘rest of the world’ when those differences get forcibly solved. I’m really hoping nukes are not involved in the resolution.

For one, it’s hard to imagine that people who embrace an ideology that includes suicide bombing would be so moved by sanctions.

And does your statement that sanctions work against democracies but no other form of government apply here? I mean I don’t know if we have any empirical evidence when that democracy is one that embraces terrorism and a radical agenda. Of course, you can’t discount the oil factor either. For instance, Iran knows the world is reluctant to impose sanctions.

All this is not to say that there’s absolutely no value. Just that it comes with tremendous cost (opportunity and otherwise) and breeds more terrorists.

There may be better ways to bring international pressure to bear in isolating the terrorists/drying up their recruitment pool.

In those few cases where the majority of citizens are actually pro-terrorism or world domination, it is still better to have them be democracies. Why? Sanctions work against democracies, and don’t work against any other form of gov’t. When the people see how badly they are being hurt by their aggressions, they become less aggressive.

Not so in countries that don’t have the freedom to become less aggressive.

My post was about options to nation-building. I didn’t say we should do nothing. Clearly something needs to be done about Iran, but continously toppling regimes in the region is, in my opinion, not the answer.

There are other options.

So, I’m questioning the Neocon/Bush ideology/theory which holds that democracy is the key to ending terrorism. I’m asking if it’s a gross over-simplification, and I see that blogagog took me up on that (thanks).

So Blogagog, you said:

“I doubt the Iranian people would do that if actually allowed a democratic election…”

Right. It’s hard to know what they’d do.

I just wonder if we’re underestimating the “hearts-and-minds” battle here (as with Iraq–the whole “greeted as liberators thing”). The U.S. has not taken an even-handed approach with regard to Israel/Palestine. Israel does rain fire down on the heads of Palestinian innoncents in retaliation, doing their share to continue the cycle of violence. Killing is killing.

And when the U.S. steps in without (earnestly) condeming–through words and policy–those acts as well as Hamas’ violence, we are not trusted in the region as a whole. They see us as not just pro-Israel, but anti-Muslim/Arab.

So, this notion that Democracy will produce this intense love for the U.S., ending terrorism may be wishful thinking. They’ll vote with their interests, and to many in the region, it doesn’t seem that the U.S. holds their interests at heart.

Chances are good that we’ll have more Hamas-type situations. When innocent countrymen are being killed or there is a perceived threat, the people gravitate toward the group who’ll take a hard line to protect them. There’s also nationalism at play. Many Iranians are reported to like the position their leadership is taking on nuclear “energy” these days.

And the anti-American/Israel sentiment is running so high that U.S. officials over there are concerned that it’s strong enough to unite Iran with some Iraqi factions. Now that’s powerful.

In the end, is the U.S. creating an impossible situation? Without winning hearts and minds but perpetrating more violence in the region against more Muslims, are we creating an endless supply of jihadists?

And this is not about being soft. It’s about being pragmatic.

No war for challah bread!

No war for mezzuzahs!

No war for kreplach!

No war for Manchevitz!

Steve, you silly blindered boy, sit down and chat with the guy who helped lead an act of war on the US already [the embassy attack was an act of war, you know]:

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.” Jonathan Swift

ST will probably edit this, but You’ve got a lot of $@&*($#^ saying that %#^*()#@%^& when we are @!~!!@$^&. I’m totally ^^%$#**@#$! my @#$$*(&$# off. Dou^@@ag.

- On one level the nuclear threat and efforts was fairly predictable. They’ve come up short in every possible way. They’re surrounded by, perhaps imperfect, but never the less, forms of psuedo Democracies, with woman being viewed as something a lot better than part of the livestock. What other card did they have left on the table.

- One of the things that is absolutely basic to any sort of toltalitarian movement is just that. Movement. If things go too badly they lose all momentum and support, and its all over. This is the extremists way of trying to stay in the game, and even though they know it could end up getting them destroyed, and lot of their own people killed in the bargain, when did a little thing like that ever matter to the “peace loving” Jihadists.

- Peace doesn’t come on a platter. You have to be prepared to fight for your liberties. “Peace” as a pretty platitude, ignoring the realities around you, can get a lot of people slaughtered. But again who cares about a little matter like that, ‘eh steve.

- Bang

Assisting pro-democracy groups in Iran is a great idea, but also will take too long. Israel and possibly parts of Russia (Chechnya) will be gone long before that happens.

In the end, no doubt bombs will fall. But it will only delay the problem, since they’ll just be more secretive. Oh well, I guess it’s a first step…