What works better in dealing with terrorists, diplomacy or force?

Question

It appears some people here think "diplomacy" would be a good option. Do we have a summit with Bin Laden? What do we offer him, and what do we ask in return?

Answer 1

We offer him 230 grains of lead traveling at 950 feet per second. We ask in return he not bleed on our new carpeting.

Answer 2

is N. Korea a terrorist state? Bush said so in his state of the Union... now he's trying diplomacy?

it appears that Republicans try diplomacy whenever they feel like it... then mock others for trying when they just don't want to?

and apparently, having a summit with Osama... is the only way we're going to come close to catching him... after all Bush said he's "not that concerned" with him...

I would rather talk to him than ignore him...

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT USING FORCE... so that's a pointless comment...

except for Obama?

Answer 3

Diplomacy with the threat of force then actually applying that force when diplomacy fails is the ideal in most situations. But in the case of a "terrorist" who only wants blood? wipe them out with force then try to talk sense in to them... then hit them again.

Answer 4

Neither will work. Diplomacy would be laughed at by the terrorists, since the only language they speak is violence. And force will kill some terrorists, but they are like dragon's teeth. You kill one and 10 more spring up where they were. The only solution is a long one, which is to support any attempt at achieving freedom in the countries which spawn terrorists. This doesn't mean going in and forcing democracy on them, but supporting grass root efforts to effect change.

Answer 5

I think when you deal with USA, diplomacy is the best since USA is the most powerful terrorist nation.

Answer 6

"We" tried that approach with Hitler in the 1930s, and were promised "peace in our time." It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

You missed the other poorly though out argument "we have to deal with poverty and blah blah blah." The reality of that situation is that terrorists tend to be wealthier than the average, they tend to be better educated and they tend to have been granted a large amount of freedom in their host/target countries.

Force is the only solution.. and if it generates more terrorists, kill them too. There is a finite number of people willing to join them.. keep killing them until that pool of people is used up, or until they figure out that what they're doing isn't worth it.

Answer 7

Please site one case of someone suggesting "negotiating" with Osama. I'd like to see him killed or captured. Apparently Bush has given up on that. As was already pointed out, Obama is the onlly one suggesting we do that. I'd also like to see some trials and convictions for the rest of the terrorists.

Answer 8

Force won't work against terrorism.

The terrorists thrive on such things.

Diplomacy won't work either.

The only way to defeat terrorism is to address the core issues which terrorism thrives on: Poverty, inequality, strife, economic hardships...?

The list goes on.

Until we deal with that, terrorism will still persist.

Answer 9

no, you don't hold a summit with bin laden. you kill or capture him.

we do need to know our history in the middle east the last 50 years and we should know why they hate us.

first of all, in the quran it says that if their is a foreign invader occupying muslim lands, all muslim brothers are to come together and drive all foreign occupiers out. you don't have to agree, but you should understand it says this in their holy book. but in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this.

bin laden stated in his fatwa when he declared war on the US during the 90s that our 8 military bases and presence in the holiest of muslim lands, saudi arabia, is the reason for his declaration of war.

the iranians hate us because in 1953, they had a highly popular DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader in mossadeq. he nationalized iranian oil fields and kicked out all foreign oil companies, including BP(british petroleum). the CIA then overthrew mossadeq and installed the brutal dictator, the shaw(arabic for king) of iran. he was of no royalty, just a title given to him by foreigners. he ruled as ruthlessly as saddam over the iranians until 1979 when they had the iranian revolution and overthrew the shaw and the muslim clerics took over the country. this is what the US embassy hostage situation was about.

arabs don't have the memory of americans. americans see 50 years as 100 lifetimes ago. arabs don't forget so easily.

the answer in dealing with terrorism is quite simple actually.
leave all arab lands, we have no business there. they don't want us there. period. the arab world has been ruled by the british empire for 100s of years. all we have done is taken their place.
they aren't interested in forcing the world into accepting islam. islam has been around for 1500 years. they haven't been a threat to the world until we started to violently engage in the middle east starting in 1953.

also the fact that saddam violated 17 UN resolutions and we hung him and israel has violated 71 UN resolutions and we reward them with 1.3 TRILLION dollars worth of money and weaponry. we pay enough money every year to israel so that each israeli citizen could receive $3,000 every year from the US government.

ever wonder about you had never heard of and iraqi terrorists before. you had heard of jordanian, saudi, pakistani, iranian, syrian, but never iraqi. now i ask you as general patreus was asked, "do you think the war in iraq has made americans safer?" i bet you can't answer the same way patreus couldn't answer. if he could answer at all, in any way, he would have said yes. but he couldn't. that should say alot.

the war on terror is a fraud. look at our borders. come on. the are simply interested in the ILLUSION of security.

as long as there is never ending war, the government has powers during war time, they could never have gotten during peace time.

Answer 10

The ONLY diplomacy that works is a two thousand pound bomb on top of their heads.