First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #945?
shotokanguy: Which is more effective at dealing with terrorism, military or diplomatic methods?

ocdspectrum: Hugs. More hugs.
Woelf: Diplomatic works better if you can back up 5-10 years to avoid whatever created the terrorism in the first place, but once it reaches the point of terrorism, military may be the only option. Of course, that then creates new terrorism, and the cycle repeats. Yay.
Hector Vortac: Military methods have a little effect but diplomatic have zero. With people who want you dead and don't care if they die themselves what's to negotiate?
bubby525: Diplomatic
Pithagoras: none of the above. you're dealing with ideas.
jegan22280: depends
Felimid: Forcing the terrorists to watch network TV 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, for years at a time.
Komodo: military
Robrob: Economic.
djbrickhaus: Diplomacy.
vandemonium: Puppies and Rainbows man, puppies and rainbows. Possibly also 2 girls kissing.
Wabete: military
Tomba: Diplomacy. BY FAR. Hopefully the American administration will get this sooner rather than later. Best example: Northern Ireland.
kathleenryan: Diplomic methods.
cgund: Diplomatic but both are pretty sorry-ass.
Polgara: diplomacy
Zarion of Arabel: neither, I suggest genocide
Numskull: Military, as long as the leadership is competent. Unfortunately, right now...well, you know.
Phil Fleischmann: Military, duh. Can anyone give even one example of diplomacy stopping terrorism? Didn't work in Iran. Didn't work with Arafat. Didn't work with Al Qaeda. OTOH, the military response has worked with Libya, with terrorists in Israel, in Afghanistan, etc.
bknightsb: Military, but it mostly depends of how and by who it's done... Diplomacy could work too, but for it to work, both sides would have to understand the other one and compromise...
Rliyen: military
Diamat: Abolishing all religions would be a better solution than either of the ones you posit.
NateStraight: Neither
FNH1: Social change dude. Convince the other guy, that staying home with the family is nicer than blowin' himself up. Give him a reason to Live, not a reason to die.
Der Ubermolch: Who, I ask you, are we supposed to negotiate with to get rid of terrorists? Particularly when the terrorism is perpetrated by people who think they're going to heaven for killing godless heathens?
tipigi: a little of both
DHEK: Probably military if you can be sure of rooting them all out and getting rid of them once and for all. If not, diplomacy might be better. However, always try diplomacy first.
elirlandes: Diplomatic. Look at South Africa, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, India, Cyprus, El Salvador, Palestine. What good have military methods ever done there?
aleo09: none of the above
william_henshaw: kill em all let god sort em out
thegroff: The diplomatic way is always better that using fire to stop fire.
_Kael_: Both answers suggest there's some focal point with which to negotiate or at what to shoot at. You'll have to use both, and more. Mil. to shoot those few known camps. Dip. to get local administration to work with you. Education, Aid, Respect, Information, Investments are a few others. I don't believe the current mix will work. On the contrary.
signjc: diplomatic
mswitlik: you're lost. The political science geek is three doors down.
Leo-T: Neither - you need both
The_T: diplomatic
jjloc: military
Blacknightjj: military, but i think both need to be use to totally deal with it.
Nazhuret: diplomacy
Beelzebub: You need to use both methods to be successful. Unless you use diplomacy to remove the root cause of the terrorists social/ideological issue, you will never stop terrorism.
SisyphusX: Diplomatic.
dmomo: 2
Dale of the Bow: Nukes
ilovekatusha: sterolisation - seriously though, foreign policy is the seed that spawns the monster
vampywife: i think it takes both to be most effective. different people understand different methods.
puffinge: military
javelin98: Military.
MaksimSmelchak: It really depends on the terrorists. Reasonable ones respond to diplomacy and eventually legitimize themselves through popular vote, in essence, becoming a reformed part of the government they wanted to change. Unreasonable terrorists are simply irrational and illogical, nothing short of military intervention will influence their actions. Many of them are fanatics and nothing will ever change their minds. They will continue to murder innocent noncombatants the world-wide because they feel that ANY action, no matter how murderous or unjust, is justified by their cause. Regardless, I always think that diplomacy should ALWAYS be tried before military intervention.
bigbadsteve: fight fire with fire
jasta6: Fire with Fire - Military......................................
Peter Palmer: Anything notb
Debate: economic: more equitable distribution of wealth
brainrob: Diplomatic ... violence begets violence
SteveK2: 10% military, 90% diplomacy
Tushratta: Military. You can't negotiate with madmen.
CraftyShafty: Depends on how close your snipers are.
Tompy: Don't you need to try both to compare?
Dorque: Diplomatic. The very idea of terrorism arose from people feeling they were under the thumb of an invincible power. Using military methods confirms their belief and makes them more deperate. If everybody was happy, they wouldn't need terrorism.
DWTripp: Diplomacy followed by military
XanderF: 'Dealing with terrorism' either way sure sounds like treating the symptom instead of the disease
POvidiusNaso: The military seems to have worked perfectly.
sourwyrm: terrorists don't respect peace
Nightmare: I want to beleive diplomatic.
Lord_Prussian: combination of both as appropriate
maka: diplomatic
BaSL: Vote NO today!
Musti: Support and help the people before they are so desperate that they believe what extremists say
Cavedog_pdx: I think it was MacArthur who said "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country!"
Bearcat89: Diplomatic? I almost hurt myself laughing. "Hey, you! Mr. Terrorist! Put down the bomb and let's talk aboBOOM!"
skrutsch: Military doesn't seem to be working.
2amp: military, but i'm biased
CapAp: Neither.
scriptorum: For prevention, diplomatic. For response, military.
snoozefest: diplomatic
Randy Cox: Diplomacy
MisterCranky: Is it diplomatic to whip out a gun and shoot a terrorist? It might be....if not, then military is my answer.
ikeafetishist: diplomacy
heli: We shouldn't be in the business of dealing with terrorism. We should be in the business of building a world where terrorism has no desire to arise.
hibikir: Throwing money at the terrorists
Wintergoblin: diplomatic methods
Cromaa: Military
Ludocrazy: At least with diplomacy there's a achnce fewer people will be hurt
mschlat: Neither - each method has the potential to spur on future terrorism.
mrbeankc: military
Fa�l: Neither. Open mind probably will
jpotell: Kill them all!
djflippy: It's not that simple.
AlorielLelyn: There are more options, but diplomatic doesn't usually result in death.
fellonmyhead: A bit of both; direct military action can bring short-term solutions but political and diplomatic strategies will always be necessary to achieve long-term results.
gnomehome: Is everything B/W for you ?
bucklen_uk: Economics
kennyb: when has diplomacy ever worked against terrorists?
onky: Diplomatic
Eric Haas: The proper combination of military and diplomatic methods.
CherryPie: You should always try the diplomatic option first.
Johan: Diplomatic methods
shippert: Long term diplomacy, in the form of not allowing the conditions that foster terrorism in the first place
Chris Schreiber: diplitary methods and miliplomatic means
EYE of NiGHT: Neither. Either they will use guile or force to find your weakpoint and bring you to their terms, or you will infiltrate their organisation and bring them to trial. Or you fight a thirty year cold war until one side wins.
Jackwraith: Economic methods, actually.
Blackwind: diplomatic
yossarians: I rate this question a 1
djlg: Walk softly with a big stick.
darthcliff: I'd try economic methods
netfilterz: Surely not military means, because you just can't wage war on individuals... Diplomacy probably neither, because terrorist groups are usually anything but an organized group with a unified leadership that you can go talk to.
jens_hoppe: Neither. Instead, try to solve the issues that cause terrorism in the first place.
BobDodgerBlue: Military
phantomvortex: Military.
chaddyboy_2000: Military.
louiseh: Diplomatic don't usually make things worse.
Shakar: Diplomatic.
jttm: Diplomacy
CortexBomb: Neither, I would say non-interference is the best deterrent
ValJor: You can't talk to a terrorist, the only language they understand is bullets. We *have* to kill them all.
ScottBecker: I'm not sure one is more effective than the other.
skelebone: Terrorism cannot be dealt with, it is guerrilla warfare against the mind.
CDRodeffer: Neither
cornjob: a combination of both