 |
| |
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
OK, Natal. Osama bin Laden did not form his organization and attack the US repeatedly over the '90s because of our actions in Iraq beginning in 2003.
|
He attacked the US in the 90's when it was revealed that the US wanted to "intervene" more for the Arab and Muslim countries than just fighting the Soviet Union....that was the past, because the US was attempting to suppress the Arab Nationalists which can be drawn in analogy to Hitler's hatred of Jews.
The thing is, the Iraq war and the combat in Afghanistan has been severely beneficial for him (ironically): such great incitement. Its like the Treaty of Versailles for Hitler. Now, further incitements, like the depression of 1929 onwards for Hitler, may eventually cause the already declining, raging sentiment to explode. (Well we already have seen the beginning of this).
Osama didn't have as much popularity in the past, and he was the source of a lot of this trouble. That doesn't change the fact, that TODAY, a lot of the current situation is in REACTION to the
The US may not be the major reason for the ORIGINAL source of the hate (although you have to blame it slightly for taking perhaps in insenstive/undemocratic approach in attempting to persuade Muslim governments to suppress Arab nationalist extremists) - but that doesn't mean the US isn't a source of major fuel for this raging fire of hate right now.
quote:
Yeah, but there will also be people on the other side saying that the preachers of hate are medieval. |
But hate speech will still be there! Hate speech will coincide with a young democracy in a country that is war-torn. Rebuttals will be there of course, and the rational arguments will be there to dissuade the people, but hate speech will still be present. Thus, you cannot fulfil the conditions of "no hate speech and democracy" (which hate speech might eventually stop persisting to a negligible level in an older democracy)....BUT you can fulfill the conditions of "rational masses mostly unaffected by hate - and the conditions of democracy" both at the same time...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
(1) Redefine the war. It should have always been the War on al Qaeda -- they were the people who attacked us.
A War on Terror has as much chance of being won as did the War on Poverty, the War on Crime, and the War on Druges. These are evils which we must perpetually struggle against, but because these are perpetual struggles, you don't declare "war." We need to refocus our "war" efforts to something winnable...and al Qaeda, we can whip.
(2) Set a tentative date for withdrawl from Iraq -- say, June 30, 2005.
When major combat was over, there were aproximately 1,500 terrorists in Iraq. Today, there are 20,000 -- despite the fact that we've killed thousands. Our very presents in that country is a recruiting tool for the terrorists. By setting a "fixed" date, most of the steam will be taken out of the enemy's recruiting drive. -- I mean, why would you sign up to risk your life to drive the Americans out, if we've already said we're going.
BTW: The reason that I've used the phrases "tentative date" and "'fixed' date" is to give wiggle room if it looks as if the date will have to be extended -- upon the request of the Iraqi goverment.
(3) Impliment the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Actually, I'm a little premature in recommending this. I'm reading their report now but have yet to get to their recommendations. But based upon their excellent report so far, and based upon the fact that the recommedations were both biparty and unanimous, I'm guessing that they're very well thought out. 
(4) Kick George W. Bush so far out of office that he doesn't bounce until he gets to Crawford, Texas.
He lacks the intellect, the understanding, and the imagination necessary to win this war. He will only take us off on more counter-productive diversions like Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:22
|
|
I don't think the USA can win it alone--perhaps with allies.
Terrorist groups are around the world and there are many terror supporting nations. Many of these are oil providing nations---Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and etc. A few are also allied to the US-Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc due to their oil. Stopping their support would be very difficult. America would have to persuade the EU and other major countries to threaten to impose sanctions on all of them, including those that provide oil. If that doesn't work, then I fear the only solution would be war against one of these countries so as to dissuade the others--and then again, and again, until the others step in line. America may have tried to do this with Iraq, but they simply can't take on practically the whole of the ME. I don't even know if they'd be willing to take on -one- more country, such as Iran. That said, European countries could, if they worked together with the US. European armies aren't rust buckets falling apart or anything like that. I'm sure the worst of them is easily far better trained and equipped than any terror-supporting army, or those militias in South America, and etc.
However, seeing that European countries are unwilling to go in, it'll be a while before any real confrontation occurs.
If and when it does, these countries should afterwards have Democracy introduced to them. I don't think going after everyone at once is a good idea though- take 1 or 2 at a time. In this case, I think Iraq's stability is extremely important is it's the 'first try' and could make or break this idea. Thus its very important for the European countries such as France or Germany to bring their troops into Iraq. I'd really like to know why they don't want to, personally: regardless of this doctrine, it is not in the interest of France/Germany/etc to have Iraq mess up.
quote:
Did the people in Jordan hate the US? Where was the public support for the terrorists who murdered tourists in Egypt?
|
For the first----LOTS AND LOTS, even before 9/11. Perhaps not majority, but many. Egypt too. Hell, the whole of the ME, probably.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
Oedin:
I agree that democracy cannot happen overnight. Long-term plans are needed, and just like your suggestion about a timetable for the US withdrawing from Iraq, the same could be done for democratic rights.
Economic Aid
Forget about economic aid. The money being poured into Iraq is already being siphoned off by Bush's buddies. More money will simply mean more corruption.
Military vs Police
Afghanistan and Iraq don't need militaries, they need effective police forces that can provide security. These police may need to fight battles, but the emphasis should be on policing first. That means getting Iraqi cops walking the beat, not attack helicopters, artillery and fighter-bombers.
Farm Subsidies
Getting rid of first-world farm subsidies is a great idea, and it would do wonders for the global economy, and reduce poverty. But it will never happen. The subsidies are going to big corporations, who have politicians in their back pockets through campaign donations or by having politicians on their payroll.
Bureaucracy
A basic problem for many Third World nations is the lack of a trained civil service that is free from corruption and has clear rules to follow. No simple answers here.
Suppressing Fundamentalists
Shaking hands with the devil is the cause of many of the world's problems. Attacking the fundamentalists head on is not the solution. The west needs to push fundamentalists to the fringe by supporting governments that are moving to democratic rights and open societies.
Oil
You suggested investing in non-Arab oil production, but these supplies are limited and cannot replace the oil supply coming from the Middle East.
And this is why the US cannot force Saudi Arabia to do anything because the Saudi government would simply turn off the tap which would bring the US economy to a halt.
What you say about fuel-efficient cars is spot on, but how do you encourage people to buy them? The best way is to create a financial incentive by increasing taxes on fuel, but very few politicians would be willing to do this.
Elections - Banning Fundamentalists Parties
Look at Algeria. Easier said than done.
World Bank
Agreed and the most important thing is to stop the World Bank loans to China. China doesn't need the money and the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Iran et al
The problem is that if you apply sanctions to Iranian oil then oil prices will shoot through the roof and the public will scream bloody murder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:22
|
|
quote:
I don't recall a sharp increase in Palestinian suicide bombings after Saddam announced his payment.
At least, these numbers don't show even a correlation.
|
When was that, anyway?
In any case, aside from that particular example, Saddam had always funded or at the least tolerated Palestinian terrorist groups in Iraq.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2004 18:57
|