quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
Yes, that's going to be a problem, I can see that, what would YOU suggest that the US should do? I can't really see any options.
I love the way you ask that question, Nebling. Eek. Well, I've suggested a number of things in my posts over the past couple months... chief amongst them being that nations get together globally to seek peaceful solutions to terrorism. That includes Arab regimes. Most of them don't like terrorism any better than we do, the ones that condone/fund it being in a minority.
People keep saying such an international effort could never work. No, not whilst the US keeps walking off from things! If this is treated like all the other treaties/agreements/conventions that the US have walked off from over the past few months alone, no, it damn well WONT work, you're right.
Global effort is the only way to go. There is a lot of injustice and hatred in the world. We all need to take responsibility - and no one nation is ever going to be able to 'make it better'. It is not America's job to 'make the world safe' - it is the job of all of us.
I would favour America and Britain getting together with as many of the world's nations as is humanly possible and working out how to approach this thing from all sides. The money to be spent should not only come out of American pockets, but out of the pockets of all who have money to give.
The world is frightened now. Nightmare scenarios are opening up in front of our eyes - for many people, they cannot escape even in their dreams. The potential for escalation of the conflict, possibly resulting in world war, is huge. There is a plus side, however, finally we have some *real* strong motivation for nations to get together and act globally.
It's the perfect time for America to drop the isolationist stance, and truly stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the rest of us, not only on terrorism, but on social and ecological issues also (social issues having a bearing on terrorism, of course...)
If America in the meantime feels that immediate action should be taken, (which it does and has) then I have argued from the start that using intelligence and special forces would have been far better to find and catch/kill the terrorists. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible, because it turns out the US doesn't have the requisite human intel to make a success of this type of operation. Also, there would be high risks for the personnel involved. Hence the liking for massive air bombing, - which they see as a far better and less risky way (from their point of view) to achieve their ends. Unfortunately, it's the Afghani civilians who end up paying the price.
I'm not quite sure what the US's ends are, really and truly. The chances of catching Osama are slim, as I've already said time and again, the man not being a complete idiot, and unlikely to sit around to be dismembered. Dilly dilly come and be killed. I think not. I've also explained why, due to the way al-quaida is set up, bombing aghanistan into rubble is just not going to break their power, realistically. America also says their actions in Afghanistan will act as a deterrent. Huh.
Making people mad as hell does not usually work as a deterrent. It just makes them want to retaliate that much more, never mind if they risk their lives. As an example, consider someone who makes an inflammatory post. They get flamed in return, right? sometimes big time. The person who makes the same point in a calm and considered way (take Ron_B as an example) will receive calm and considered replies, made with respect.
Every action causes a reaction. And the reaction will be in line with the original action. Violence provokes violence provokes violence provokes violence. Unless the individual or nation on the receiving end of violence happens to have enough enlightened self interest to reject the knee jerk reaction to violence and look for creative solutions that will benefit all parties.
If we want eliminate terrorism and freedom fighting (difference in terminology down to perspective), there is only one foolproof option. Kill off the human race.
We have to face it - there will always be people who don't like the way things are and who will try to change things. However, if we begin the process of widening the channels of communications between the peoples of the world, and learn the meaning of empathy, then we can hope to keep such action to the minimum.
When there are no eyes to see your plight, nor ears to hear, the temptation is to make known your rage and despair through inflicting terror and shock. This can become a habit, eventually being justified by the ones doing the inflicting as the only way to get results. (This is where we are now - and no, I do not hold this view or agree with it. However, it is easy enough for me to sit here in my comfortable warm room with a full belly and say that.) Would it not be much better for the West to truly enter into dialogue, and get results that way instead? Far cheaper too, in terms of lives and money spent.
Realistically speaking, this means nothing less than a complete rethink of the way we live with each other on this planet. I would see it being a slow process, with nations kicking and screaming all the way. But the way we are currently living, the gap between the rich and the very poor widens daily, inhumane regimes are allowed to flourish, and we continue to far far more as a race on arms than we do on feeding the poor and hungry. These are wonderful conditions to breed terrorists and terrorism.
We have created a stupid, evil and upside down world in which billions go hungry whilst others die of diseases caused by all kinds of overindulgence. This is an obscene situation, and one which will continue whilst we continue to see each other in terms of difference, rather than as global citizens, who all deserve to be treated decently and with the same degree of compassion and respect.
Like creates like. If we want to see love in the world, and peace, and happiness, then selling billions of pounds worth of arms to the very people who we just do not want rising up and giving us a hard time with them is definitely not the clever way to go.
It's time for humans to get smart Neb. And if that isn't the 2 or 3 simple bullet point answer you wanted, then I'm sorry! But we live in an immensely complex society, and ALL the causes behind the evolution and growth of terrorism need to be analysed (they have been, by various individuals and academics, but we need such analyses to be brought together in a way that makes them usable, by a global body that has the power to take action.)
What you resist, persists. Anger begets anger begets anger. That old thing in the old testament, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It's always seemed stupid to me - if you take it to its logical conclusion, an eye for an eye, ok, so terrorists bombed us, we bomb them, but then, you need the eye for an eye again, so they will bomb us back (or nuke us) then again, the revenge must be taken, so we do the same back, and then they come back again, and so forth, until one or the other is destroyed.
When the conflict widens to encompass the globe, (as both Bush and Osama seem to want it to - anyone who is not with us is against us is the creed of both of them) then you have a very scarey scenario. If Bush and Osama succeed in polarising the world, then this conflict will continue until either the West or the East is vanquished, or both sides decide they have had enough.
Getting round a table and talking may not be the easy option, or the fast option, - but given the potential for escalation in the current conflict, I predict that if the worst comes to pass, many will wish to hell we had taken that road. Even with the bombing going on, it is not too late. When it will be too late for sure is if Bush listens to the madmen in Washington who want to widen the bombing to include Iraq, and possibly one or two other Arab states. That would be utter and complete disaster. IMO.
PS. One suggestion I have, given that the US *has* gone into war mode - , and bearing in mind we need to work with the current situation, rather than what we'd like it to be.....
whilst the fighting goes on, we could be doing our damnest to build a true coalition right across the board, with the goal of wiping out terrorism and the conditions in which it flourishes - this as the first move towards that international body I spoke of earlier.)
Eventually, maybe the fighting could stop. The way things are at present, I don't see how the US can withdraw without accomplishing their aims (without the whole Arab world laughing their socks off that is) without a huge loss of face. It is highly possible they may not accomplish their aims. So, here we are staring Vietnam in the face all over again, only with the potential to blow up in our faces on a much larger scale.
[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]