|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2001 : 17:56:44 [Permalink]
|
All I see is people singing national anthems and talking about vengeance and holy wars and saying things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." God, how stupid is that???
Many Americans I have noticed seem to think that the definition of an ally is someone that does what we say when we say to do it. It's quite a quaint notion but sadly one that does not make you friends and allies.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2001 : 05:51:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I understand the concept: Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it. That, I think, is the premise you're operating from. I understand that. But, now at this point, we must set aside what we've screwed up and analysis (emotions will interfere with understanding) and do what must be done. After time has healed wounds and cooler heads prevail: then is the time to stir the ashes of the past and wonder and consider and look with hindsight at what happened, how it happened, why it happened and was there anything that could have been done to prevent it. Then, look to how can we repair that damage.
The premise, as I see it, is that those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. The problem is that there are still politicians and others who say that training the terrorists in the 80's was a good thing, even in light of the recent tragedies (Are their children going to die in Bush's "war on terrorism"? I doubt it.). The logical conclusion of that thinking therefore is that the 6000 killed recently and the thousands killed worldwide in the last few years are just collateral damage of the war on communism. the politicians and others who are spouting out about how they would do it again have obviously not learned.
The Mujahadeen were young boys recruited from all over the Arab world (mostly from refugee camps and other such squalor). The training facilities in Pakistan, run by the CIA (and similar agencies from the UK) and funded with American money and arms from the US & UK were essentially fanatical fundamentalist Islamic bootcamps where each spent months to years in training in not only weapons and terrorist techniques, but indoctrination in an apocaliptic vision of Islam. What the CIA wanted were young men who would be happily suicidal in their work against the Soviets. That' s exactly what we got and look what happened to the Soviets.
After the Soviets pulled out, the US dropped support of the Mujahadeen and they were subsequentially treated as criminals in other parts of the Arab world. I have heard that there are approximately 200,000 left worldwide. My theory as to why Saddam Houssein was not eliminated from power directly by UN forces or indirectly by supporting rebels within Iraq, is that by having him still in power and making noise, the US and Saudi Arabia could justify a permanent US military presence in the Middle East. The real fear of these countries is the Mujahadeen and not Iraq. We have gotten ourselves into one hell of an international mess and I don't see anything but long term political negotiations being the only solution not some "shoot em up", endless war. We need to also change policy, the CIA should be used for intellegence gathering and not for fomenting revolution and training terrorists.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2001 : 08:28:58 [Permalink]
|
Greg, I am aware of the history. I think I mentioned that we (our government) were in a cold war mentality. Given the same set of data and no other information, would I have made the same decisions I made ten/twenty years ago? Yeah probably. I can't see that I would have changed anything.
I see that past and know that it has had impact on what happened here. But right now, we can either show that this is unacceptable and we will seek out those responsible or we can back off. But playing nice right now is only going to encourage (IMO) further acts of terrorism. They [terrorists] need to see that the US will not be subjected to their form of violence.
I want only those who committed the acts of terrorism punished, I know that there will be collateral damage - I can only hope that we are able to keep it to a minimum.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2001 : 12:24:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I want only those who committed the acts of terrorism punished, I know that there will be collateral damage - I can only hope that we are able to keep it to a minimum.
You and I agree here. What I'm saying is that if nothing changes in our way of doing business overseas, then nothing will change with respect to US citizens being targeted in the future.
In an argument situation who do you have more respect for? One who admits errors in thinking and works toward changing or one who pounds his chest and says "my way or the highway" and refuses to budge. I have heard nothing at all introspectively from most people in government. In fact, it appears that what they want to do is more of the same but with even less knowlege/control by the people. That is exactly like the second individual above.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2001 : 12:33:31 [Permalink]
|
I think we are going to need to order a lot more body bags for our citizens if we keep up this policy of only focusing on effects and ignore the causes 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2001 : 15:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Greg,
I see your point. You're correct. Those who are willing to learn from the past and seek out the underlying cause in foreign policy mistakes are probably better equipped to lead us right now and into the future to set things on a better path. [sarcasm]Maybe we should quit electing lawyers since they don't care why and only how.[/sarcasm]
Somehow, I don't think that mentality will change until our children's children are in office. And that is a scary thought.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2001 : 21:00:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think we are going to need to order a lot more body bags for our citizens if we keep up this policy of only focusing on effects and ignore the causes
I think we are going to need to order a lot more body bags if we don't recognize that we are in a war. The first priority in a war is to defeat the enemy. Once that is accomplished, you can start worrying about how to alter policies so as to avoid another one.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2001 : 21:18:14 [Permalink]
|
I don't see how we can ever, ever defeat terrorism in the first place. In the second, on the road to at least try to defeat it policies of some kind are already being changed and it's the changing of certain policies that give any hope to doing anything, and I mean anything, to counter terrorism.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 05:07:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't see how we can ever, ever defeat terrorism in the first place.
We can come pretty close if we convince every country in the world that it is against their best interests to harbor terrorists.
These kinds of attacks take massive planning and resources, training and places to conduct that training. Without governments either actively helping, or just looking the other way, these terrorists will have a much more difficult, hopefully even impossible, time realizing their plans.
Indeed, our goal now is to convince these countries that it is in their best interest to actively seek these terrorists and their camps, and to wipe them out or turn them over to us.
The only way to do this is with a threat of force. We don't have time or the luxury of sitting around hoping our economic sanctions or diplomacy can make a difference. We must show everyone that we mean what we say, and that we're not going to sit by any longer.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 09:05:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We can come pretty close if we convince every country in the world that it is against their best interests to harbor terrorists.
First you say this.
quote:
The only way to do this is with a threat of force. We don't have time or the luxury of sitting around hoping our economic sanctions or diplomacy can make a difference. We must show everyone that we mean what we say, and that we're not going to sit by any longer.
Then you say this and contradict yourself. Getting the help of other countries requires diplomacy. So which is it?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 10:11:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Getting the help of other countries requires diplomacy. So which is it?
"Hey other countries, if you don't help us get the terrorists hanging out in your country, there will possibly be military consequences."
This is the short-term way of "getting the help of other countries", no diplomacy required.
This is the route we appear to be taking, out of necessity to show the world that we will not put up with terrorism any more.
There is no contradiction here. You're defining "convince" in a diplomatic sense exclusively. Dimplomacy and military force are both useful in convincing other countries to help out. I'm using it in the "military force" sense.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 10:16:28 [Permalink]
|
Sounds nice in theory. However, in practice the US cannot bomb anyone it wants whenever it wants. Nor can it invade. There have already been stern warnings to the US about invading a muslim nation. Ego is not going to be ebough I'm afraid. We are going to have to get cooperation because idle threats don't do diddly.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 10:22:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sounds nice in theory. However, in practice the US cannot bomb anyone it wants whenever it wants. Nor can it invade. There have already been stern warnings to the US about invading a muslim nation. Ego is not going to be ebough I'm afraid. We are going to have to get cooperation because idle threats don't do diddly.
Fortunately, the U.S. has had to use neither diplomacy nor threat of force. A great many countries are already in agreement with us.
The U.S. can't bomb anyone whenever it wants by itself (well, it could, but it wouldn't be acceptable), but with the backing of most major first world countries, I wouldn't want to chance it if I were head of a country harboring terrorists...
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 10:26:00 [Permalink]
|
Even more fortunately....the fact is that diplomacy is being used. Policies are being changed to help fight terrorism because those in the know realize this is the only way to get anywhere in the vacinity of the lofty goals our President select has set for us.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2001 : 13:00:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Even more fortunately....the fact is that diplomacy is being used. Policies are being changed to help fight terrorism because those in the know realize this is the only way to get anywhere in the vicinity of the lofty goals our President select has set for us.
Which policies need to be changed and how? Surely interventionalism got us into this mess, and we would not now be in it if we'd have kept our noses out of the Middle East in the first place. I'm all for isolationism. I even vote Libertarian, and they are as rabidly isolationist as they come.
However…
Adopting a noninterventionalist stance at this point would be quite disastrous. Pulling out of the Middle East would send the signal loud and clear to Al-Qaeda and all other terror movements that mass murder as a political device works all too well. They would thus be spurned to use it more often and on a grander scale.
Moreover…
We do not really know if our interventions did more harm than good. Had we not acted as we did in the sandbox, certainly Kuwait and quite possibly Saudi, Israel, and Afghanistan would have been conquered and oppressed by their stronger neighbors. The Soviet Union might not have bothered to break up. Perhaps the Cold War might have escalated into a nuclear exchange? Who knows? It seems utterly fruitless to speculate on what might have happened if we'd have adopted isolationism after Vietnam.
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/24/2001 13:05:06 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
