The war against terrorism is already lost

What will these strikes against afghanistan do? if not start a new cycle of violence, It will provide fresh insperation for a new generation of terrorists. And more innocent civilians will pay with their lives. All that will happen is terrorists attacks will get more frequent and worse, new martyrs will be created. And the USA goverments support of israel has allowed osama bin laden to link himself with the cause of liberating palestine, therefore peace in the middle east will be even harder to come by and the world will suffer war for many years to come. The only way to stop terrorism is to eliminate the cause(i.e the middle east & USA's Foreign policy), this war will just make terrorism stronger. The only way to fight fire is with water. Indeed this militry action will just be interpreted by many people as america throwing its weight around again and trying to dominate the world, which justs turns more people to extremism.

------------------


In nomine Imperatis, guard our armour and our gaze; lubricate our projectile weapons that they do not jam. Bless and brighten the beams of our lasers; fiat lux in tenebris.
He is the Master of Mankind by the will of the gods and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the Imperium to whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day.

[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 10-11-2001).]

[Horatio]

Well said. Best damn message I've heard in ages.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: What will these strikes against afghanistan do? if not start a new cycle of violence, It will provide fresh insperation for a new generation of terrorists. And more innocent civilians will pay with their lives. All that will happen is terrorists attacks will get more frequent and worse, new martyrs will be created. And the USA goverments support of israel has allowed osama bin laden to link himself with the cause of liberating palestine, therefore peace in the middle east will be even harder to come by and the world will suffer war for many years to come. The only way to stop terrorism is to eliminate the cause(i.e the middle east & USA's Foreign policy), this war will just make terrorism stronger. The only way to fight fire is with water. Indeed this militry action will just be interpreted by many people as america throwing its weight around again and trying to dominate the world, which justs turns more people to extremism.

I agree with you, but unfortunately the people making the decisons right now don't.

In the future, we will have the hollow and dubious distinction of being able to say "I told you so," for whatever that will be worth (not much at all I'm afraid).

[Ronn_Bman]

I can't agree. You can't allow acts like this to stand unopposed. The poor people of the world will always follow tyrants if properly inspired. The answer is to help ease suffering from poverty and remove tyrants.

Also, the Middle East doesn't mind asking for our help when they need it do they? Fanatics are so upset about our presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, but guess what, the Saudi's wanted us there. Would they have been happier to have Sadam's troops there? Sadam isn't a fundamentalist muslim. Why would he be better than us.

American's go out of their way to help the less fortunate and be unoffensive to others, and yet, they are offended at our very existance?!?!?

Didn't you hear the president say that prior to September 11, 2001 the largest supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanastan was the good ole US of A? We provided more food for them, than their government! And we're still worried about feeding the innocent Afghans during our on going military operations. Out of all of the billions Osama's terrorist organization is suppose to have to spend on death and destruction, I wonder how much he spend in the last 5 years to feed his Muslim brothers?

Justice must be served...
The innocent must be protected...
And the guilty should be punished!

Cry Havok! And let slip, the dogs of WAR!

------------------
An elevator smells different to a dwarf.



"The object of war is Not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

-General George Patton (1885-1945)

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-11-2001).]

[250]

for those anit-war members

right now, I am telling you:

stop breathing NOW, because you are going to die in less than 100 years

will you do it?
if you don't do it, then in less than one hundred years, you die, and someone can tell you "I told you so..."

if you do it, you would die now.

not attacking the teorrorists right now is like holding your breath because you are scared to die in less than 100 years. die now or die later? or should I say, die or have a chance for survival (and peace, preferably) ?

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I can't agree. You can't allow acts like this to stand unopposed. The poor people of the world will always follow tyrants if properly inspired. The answer is to help ease suffering from poverty and remove tyrants. American's go out of their way to help the less fortunate and be unoffensive to others, and yet, they are offended at our very existance?!?!? Didn't you hear the president say that prior to September 11, 2001 the largest supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanastan was the good ole US of A? We provided more food for them, than their government! And we're still worried about feeding the innocent Afghans during our on going military operations. Out of all of the billions Osama's terrorist organization is suppose to have to spend on death and destruction, I wonder how much he spend in the last 5 years to feed his Muslim brothers?

Questioning the current approach is NOT the same thing as saying we shouldn't do anything. There are (or rather, were) a whole range of options between doing nothing and treating this as a war with Afghanistan (or at least a large part of Afghanistan).

I agree with you very much about the importance of reducing poverty throughout the world. Desperate conditions such as abject poverty breeds people who have nothing to lose by desperate action.

Regarding your point about aid provided by America to other countries, that point has been made many times on this forum, but it is a dubious one.

The reason the US is the largest provider of "aid" to other countries is because it is by far the wealthiest country in the world. If you look at the aid given by countries as a percentage of their total GNP, however, the US does not appear nearly so generous after all. It is actually way down the list of donor countries, when viewed in that light, iirc. It has been a while since I saw the official stats on this though. Anybody know off hand how the countries of the world rank now in that regard?

[Ronn_Bman]

The US is the wealthist and gives the most aid to countries worldwide, and to say it isn't enough because (insert any reason) is ludicruous.

As far as the range of options to fight terrorism, yes there are many, but our lighter approaches to terrorism certainly haven't been very effective over the last 20 years. If anything, that has fostered the idea that America is soft and can be defeated. It's time to begin the end of those who would purposely harm innocents.

Other countries may complain about America, but they love our aid, they love our technology, they love our money, and they will learn to live with our capability to protect ourselves by whatever means necessary.

------------------
An elevator smells different to a dwarf.



"The object of war is Not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

-General George Patton (1885-1945)

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: The US is the wealthist and gives the most aid to countries worldwide, and to say it isn't enough because (insert any reason) is ludicruous. As far as the range of options to fight terrorism, yes there are many, but our lighter approaches to terrorism certainly haven't been very effective over the last 20 years. If anything, that has fostered the idea that America is soft and can be defeated. It's time to begin the end of those who would purposely harm innocents. Other countries may complain about America, but they love our aid, they love our technology, they love our money, and they will learn to live with our capability to protect ourselves by whatever means necessary.

My point was that the US actually does not give as much as other countries, in proportion to its wealth. The amount of aid the US gives is actually quite tiny, compared to its wealth. I don't see why you think this is a ludicrous point.

I don't think you can attribute the cause of current terrorism to "softness" on the part of the US, unless you define "softness" as doing things like killing up to one million Iraquis in and after the Gulf War.

LOL -- I am reminded of a Neil Young song, which refers to the "Thousand points of light" speech once made by Bush, Sr: "We've got a thousand points of light, for the homeless man -- we've got a kinder, gentler machine gun hand."

A far more compelling reason for the motivations of current terrorism is not the kindnesses we have done in the past, but the injustices. That is what they are bitching about.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I can't agree. You can't allow acts like this to stand unopposed. The poor people of the world will always follow tyrants if properly inspired. The answer is to help ease suffering from poverty and remove tyrants. Also, the Middle East doesn't mind asking for our help when they need it do they? Fanatics are so upset about our presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, but guess what, the Saudi's wanted us there. Would they have been happier to have Sadam's troops there? Sadam isn't a fundamentalist muslim. Why would he be better than us. American's go out of their way to help the less fortunate and be unoffensive to others, and yet, they are offended at our very existance?!?!? Didn't you hear the president say that prior to September 11, 2001 the largest supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanastan was the good ole US of A? We provided more food for them, than their government! And we're still worried about feeding the innocent Afghans during our on going military operations. Out of all of the billions Osama's terrorist organization is suppose to have to spend on death and destruction, I wonder how much he spend in the last 5 years to feed his Muslim brothers? Justice must be served... The innocent must be protected... And the guilty should be punished! Cry Havok! And let slip, the dogs of WAR!

Personally, I think this is so much bull. Removing tyrants? Try not creating them in the first place. American governmental policy helped create both Saddam, as he is now, and bin Laden, as he is now. So first step, don't create the tyrants. Think before you act. Go for long term, rather than short.

As I've said before, the removal of tyrants needs to be accomplished by a world body with teeth, NOT nations acting unilaterally.

Most of these points have been made before ad infinitum, but I'd like to put in a new perspective on the aid thing:

On Tuesday, a total of 37,500 ration packs had been dropped into Afghanistan. There are, according to UN estimates, 7.5 million hungry or starving people in the country. The US dept of defense has said it's got another 2 million packs - each of which contains food for one day, by the way - 2200 calories.

Go figure. That feeds 27% of the starving for ONE DAY, assuming a. that all the rations reach their destination, a(food drops notoriously unreliable) and b. they are suitable for the recipients (who may be starving).

So much for the great humanitarian aid scheme. Bread and circuses, - though I perceive far more more circus than bread.

Before the strikes started, aid was getting through via UN conveys. This has now stopped, and food is to be dispensed by the military. Bombs and aid. Great combination. Well thought out, dontchathink? The 'conditions for sustained humanitarian relief in Afghanistan' which Rumfeld promised the strike would bring are not in evidence yet.

Bush said last week that the aid packages were to 'show the generosity of America and her allies'. In other words, they were a gesture, something to sweeten the pill of military action, especially as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Where I come from, we call it a media stunt. Given the figures above, I do not think I am being cynical and unfair on this.



------------------


Most Ecstatic and Exotic Mistress of the Illuminati

[250]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: My point was that the US actually does not give as much as other countries, in proportion to its wealth. The amount of aid the US gives is actually quite tiny, compared to its wealth. I don't see why you think this is a ludicrous point.

it is not fair to give aid according to the portion of your wealth

a simple example is, when you go to a restaurant to eat, and it is time to pay gratitude (tip, for us commoners)

well, if you have a $20 meal, how much would you pay? 15%, correct

but what if you eat a $1000 meal? (mind you, this is not an amazing number among certain people) do you pay $150?
nope, no one does that, it is stupid to pay this much JUST for tips. (the meal's cost is worthwhile, because the cost goes to friends, which is rewarded in future) they pay range from 10 to maybe 50 dollars according to personal preference

see my point here? paying for the proportion is just not realistic