Well, it's already started. Colin Powell is having a news conference with a Russian minister. A question was asked that now that the US is going after terrorists, will they help dealing with Chechnya's terrorists? Powell's answer: We encourage Russia to find a peaceful solution to this issue. It appears this may be a "we want the world to help us fight OUR terrorist problems, but yours are your problem. We can also use force, but we encourage you to negotiate". I was hoping this might signal a change to US non-tolerance of terrorism everywhere.
I agree, shanna. Looks like all this "united against terrorism" talk is just more of the same BS. Maybe that's why it seems that none of our "allies" are exactly running over to help, and vice versa.
Yeah, the US is just a selfish country.... We never do anything for anybody! Shanna, don't you think it would be the right thing to deal first with terrorists that act on an international scale (62 nations were affected by the WTC/Pentagon/PA hijackings) and seek a worldwide audience? As my Granny used to say, "First things first." I hope that the Coalition Against Terrorism (CAT-- I like that!) that is formed is long-lasting (i.e. permanent) to extinguish all terrorists whenever and wherever they pop up, but this is not the crucial juncture at which to be trying to extract promises out of a severely injured nation. It makes me sick and distrustful of these nations offering us help with conditions attached. Some seem reasonable but some seem self-serving. If we have to bribe them to help, they are not truly committed to solving the problem. They are whores in that case and I'd rather proceed without or around them if at all possible.
Then we should start saying we're only going after terrorists that affect us. And why is it so hard or disgusting to believe that other countries who give us help in finding these bastards ask that we help them in finding the bastards that terrorize them?
I agree with you also RichRocket. Terrorism, as well as most crimes, exists because of self-serving behavior and indifference. It's just sad that at this point in human history and evolution these character flaws can't be overcome, even when faced with such powerful examples of their costs. There have been posts and references to stories about why God "allowed" this to happen. What we should be asking is why did\do WE ALLOW these things to happen, both here and abroad.
This act of terrorism affected citizens of some 62 nations; it's not just us. Is there any doubt that this act of terrorism has been part of a series of terroristic acts (WTC bomb, USS Kohl, and finally the WTC hijackings) that have finally crossed a line that EVERYBODY can object to? I think that the priority is clear to go after those responsible for this largest terroristic action in history FIRST and deal with the rest of it later. These recent actions are a threat to every western culture and could be repeated many times over. That's why they need to be snuffed right away and with finality. The rest of the punk terrorists will get their's later. Like I said, I could see the CAT becoming a permanent entity with policing functions and occasional military action wherever and whenever necessary. Is there any doubt that the inspiration for the Coalition comes from the WTC hijackings? I think not. It is our tragedy and our leadership which is pulling it together, so it's only right that our business get taken care of first. And, as usual, the financial burden will be primarily ours. The rest, later. The disgusting part is their attachment of conditions that are self-serving. This is a great problem. Why do we have to buy their way in?
Shanna, you could just as easily call the Russians "terrorists" over the events in the War for Chechyna. Colin Powell knows this, and Putin's request is just plain silly.
The thing is that we have been victims of terrorism before - the WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa. This isn't new. This is just the first time it struck here and that is shocking. By the same token, there have been terroist acts all over the world for decades and the US has done largely nothing unless they directly effected us. When we went to support other countries in their ongoing battles and negotiations, you think we didn't ask for something in return??? C'mon! Of course we did. It is the nature of doing business on the world stage. I think we are naive to think that the US hasn't been involved in the same type of negotiations previously. This attack just slapped us to attention. If this attack would've happened in Russia or China or Israel or some other country where our interests wouldn't have been threatened, I doubt very seriously we would have had anywhere close to the same reaction. There is nothing wrong with defending your own interests no matter where you live. It is the responsibility of the government to do that for its people.
You can also call the Americans terrorists for a slew of things we have done. I think this points out a systemic flaw in the idea of a 'war on terrorism.' The Chechens buried a suitcase of radioactive waste in a Moscow park once; that's terror. Obviously, there are differences between our conflict with our terrorists and Russia's with theirs. And, I think the Chechens' argument has some merit. But, the tactics the Chechens employ are terroristic and should fall under the umbrella of a 'war on terrorism.' So, what does it mean when it doesn't? It means that's not what we're fighting. We're fighting our terrorists. I'm afraid of what the future of this conflict will be. It seems to be shaping into a war on an ideology (specifically, an Islamic-driven ideology the understands the US to be an enemy of Allah) instead of a war on an enemy. I think it quite possible to revisit the worst of Vietnam and the Cold War with this approach. We'll be defining our enemies by what they think.
I don't think it is necessarily unreasonable to expect that for the United States to get help from other countries regarding our concerns about terrorism, the United States should expect to have to give a little on some issues that they aren't so keen about. I think the real problem with the Chechens is their proximity to Turkey, just about the only Islamic Middle East country that would qualify as a full-on friend with the U.S. The Turks have sided strongly with the Chechens and I think that politely declining the Russians' request, with the greatest of finesse was the best move possible. Remember, that it was from Turkey that the US was able to stage much of its attacks on Iraq durring the gulf war. I believe that all of the B-52's and many of the stealth fighters flew from there. here is a link to a BBC story about the ties between Chechens and Turks
<B>Shanna, don't you think it would be the right thing to deal first with terrorists that act on an international scale (62 nations were affected by the WTC/Pentagon/PA hijackings) and seek a worldwide audience? </B> This is not a "first things first" argument. Powell said that he hopes Russia will continue to negotiate with their terrorists. There was no indication of "we will get to that". Do you really think the US is going to help go after the Bosques and IRA after we get our guys? <B>It makes me sick and distrustful of these nations offering us help with conditions attached. Some seem reasonable but some seem self-serving. </B> Much as we like to believe otherwise, this is how all nations -- the US included -- works. There's always a "what's in it for me" question. Ask yourself why we went into Bosnia to stop genocide there but completely ignored it in Rwanda. Bosnia affects Europe and thus our economy. Rwanda does not.
Shanna thanks for the link. I am surprising we are approaching terrorism like this. I honestly though it would be an effort against all terrorism, going after the larger (international) ones first and eventually getting to the local or regional groups. Our alliance may not be a strong as I hoped.
My response in another thread: I'm afraid that our nation is preparing itself for a major loss of face. In proclaiming a war on terrorism, if they're requesting international assistance now (and they need to), then they'd better be willing to assist other countries with their problems. That means going into South America to deal with the Shining Path. It might mean helping Russia with those pesky Chechens. And South Korea with North Korean terrorists. And Pakistan and India with extremists of both sides. Japan with their Auma cult. Spain with the Basque separatist movement. Great Britain and Ireland with the Ulster Unionists and IRA. Extremists in Palestine and Israel. We've always urged negotiations before. Palestinians blowing up Israeli positions? They've got a legitimate gripe, negotiate. The IRA is blowing up England? Well, you did screw them over. Negotiate. South America? Well, as long as they're not trafficking drugs, we never gave a ****. Chechnya? Don't attack them Russia, negotiate! Now that all has to change. Unless we're just interesting in meaningless, self-serving rhetoric.
Are we not going after terrorists that affected other nations? Just because it happened on our soil doesn't mean only our nation was terrorized.
Hoop-T: of course we are. That was my point. The critics were trying to frame this as a "you help us with our (US) problem" type of situation, when in fact it is the vanguard of a large, lethal Western Civilization type of problem (admittedly with the US as the leading target). That 62 nations had citizens threatened or killed proves the point that this is not just "our" problem that we are trying to solve. We suffered the most in this attack, but it is squarely not just "our" problem. These hijacking terrors are the catalyst event for a revolutionary attitude towards and treatment of terrorists everywhere. Ours first; that's all. shanna: of course Powell didn't address it. We have a crisis at hand. If we don't snuff these guys out, planes elsewhere in the world could go down across Europe. This crisis seems to supercede rifle fire and molotov cocktails. I can't predict the extent of our follow-up on terrorism around the world. Local battles are very different from attacks that come from halfway around the world. I would hope that some kind of ever-vigilence would come out of this. I understand the self-serving nature of alliances. Some of the requests will be fairminded, but seemingly some are going to be out of a range of acceptability. We will do this with or without some of these "allies" (without will be more difficult for sure). I hope we have the ability to walk away from those who get too greedy.
RichRocket, I was directing my comments not towards you, but the others saying that we are enlisting the help of the world without returning the favor. I was using your quote as a basis for my argument. In other words, I was trying to make the same point as you.
It is a global war on terrorism. And it is being taken seriously. Unless you think this is a coincidence?http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/northern_ireland/newsid_1553000/1553266.stm
You know, most nations really aren't that afraid. Probably because their foreign policy hasn't been as divisive as ours. So it's a matter of degree? Blowing up a car... not such a big deal. Blow up the world trade center... and they've crossed a line? There's not an ethical difference. Then you're not up with current events. Bush is already recommending peaceful resolution for Russia with Chechen terrorists. Already seeing the hypocrisy. You do know that the Chechens have been actively trying to capture Russian nukes, right? Is this not a threat? And Chechens acquiring nukes isn't a threat? Once again, bin Laden hasn't declared Jihad against Sweden or Canada. He did against the US. Seems we're asking them to share risk for something they're only peripherally involved in. Once again, Bush has denied solidarity with Russia on the issue of Chechnya. While Russia was certainly responsible to a degree for creating the terrorists, so are we with bin Laden. In fact, we trained him to terrorize Russian targets. They're still expressing solidarity. Actually, there isn't much of a coalition right now. Most nations express their sorrow. Many nations want to help us in seeking justice. From reports, it looks like most look disfavorably upon military reprisals. The US has almost always required conditions in order to help. Generally, we intervene when we think our interests are at risk. If the Pakastanis don't feel their interests are at risk, then they're not going to do much to help unless given incentive. That's simply international politics. Besides, we already missed the best way to go about this. Pakistan is allied with China. Pakistan wishes to bind herself closer with China. China wants to demonstrate her influence. Possible course of action: persuade China to persuade Pakistan. It's had some effect in the past on human rights issues, etc. What's inappropriate here? Well, the fact that the younger Bush doesn't like multilateralism. The US is demanding cooperation... without cooperating itself. We're making demands, and not giving concessions. We want other countries to bind themselves to our cause, without allowing ourselves to be banned in return. We're acting like a hegemon. We should use this to strengthen institutions of international cooperation like the UN. More blunders. Incidentally: BC had a political science forum on US int'l policy in the crisis. Some of these guys have serious experience in the state dept, etc... they're conservative as a group. They universally said that the US is completely misplaying this... and that W. seems to be going against what many of his most intelligent advisors want. I really hope W isn't screwing us over, single-handedly.
haven: You know, most nations really aren't that afraid. Probably because their foreign policy hasn't been as divisive as ours. Reply: If so, they won't get on the train. Let the chips fall. I don't see any evidence that we are or will compel them to participate. There's a saying that the tallest nail gets hammered first; I think it applies to the U.S. haven: So it's a matter of degree? Blowing up a car... not such a big deal. Blow up the world trade center... and they've crossed a line? There's not an ethical difference. Reply: I guess so; let's see how comprehensive the alliance gets. I see a difference. I'm not measuring the man's heart, I'm measureing the perceived danger. haven: Then you're not up with current events. Bush is already recommending peaceful resolution for Russia with Chechen terrorists. Already seeing the hypocrisy. You do know that the Chechens have been actively trying to capture Russian nukes, right? Is this not a threat? Reply: I'm sufficiently up with current events. I don't think it is hypocrisy to recommend different solutions for different problems. Sometimes things are of crushing importance. This is such a time in our history. In law we have degrees of criminality for killing, i.e. First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, and Manslaughter. Each has a different penalty typically associated with it. Is that not likewise reflective of an "ethical" difference? The same standard should be applied to acts of terrorism. Why not? How long have they been trying to capture those nukes? Yes, of course that's a problem but how imminent is it? This event is a wake up for the US more than anybody. Let's hope that our new alertness to the horrors of terrorism will have an ongoing activism around the world. Nobody said we are perfect, but we are a hell of a lot more perfect than most. haven: And Chechens acquiring nukes isn't a threat? Once again, bin Laden hasn't declared Jihad against Sweden or Canada. He did against the US. Seems we're asking them to share risk for something they're only peripherally involved in. Reply: then they don't have to participate if they don't see the problem as we do. Sometimes it is tough being the Leader! Leadership by poll-taking has proven to be ineffective! (Cough) haven: Once again, Bush has denied solidarity with Russia on the issue of Chechnya. While Russia was certainly responsible to a degree for creating the terrorists, so are we with bin Laden. In fact, we trained him to terrorize Russian targets. They're still expressing solidarity. Reply: Denied or deferred solidarity? Time will tell. Why would Russia even consider joining the Alliance if they held us ultimately responsible for training Bin Laden. Maybe it is much ado about nothing to them. haven: Actually, there isn't much of a coalition right now. Most nations express their sorrow. Many nations want to help us in seeking justice. From reports, it looks like most look disfavorably upon military reprisals. Reply: This will take time to pull together. The solidarity of the coalition will have some influence over the eventual actions taken, but the US will do what they feel they have to do decisively. Again, see leadership above. The world has never rushed to our aid (see Gordon Sinclair) because we seldom need it. Now we ask for it. Isn't most of their disfavorable look based on their own concerns-- not ours. How indebted is the world to us overall? haven: The US has almost always required conditions in order to help. Generally, we intervene when we think our interests are at risk. If the Pakastanis don't feel their interests are at risk, then they're not going to do much to help unless given incentive. That's simply international politics. Reply: I'm not against all incentive. What about doing the RIGHT THING? Is that even a consideration? I know that it's a complex process to identify exactly what the right thing is. haven: Besides, we already missed the best way to go about this. Pakistan is allied with China. Pakistan wishes to bind herself closer with China. China wants to demonstrate her influence. Possible course of action: persuade China to persuade Pakistan. Reply: tell China to get involved then. haven: It's had some effect in the past on human rights issues, etc. What's inappropriate here? Well, the fact that the younger Bush doesn't like multilateralism. Reply: Do you mean President Bush?! He's only been in office just over 8 months. We kick our best ass when we are in charge; who can blame us for preferring that arrangement! haven: The US is demanding cooperation... without cooperating itself. We're making demands, and not giving concessions. We want other countries to bind themselves to our cause, without allowing ourselves to be banned in return. Reply: See Leadership above. They can get on board or they can not get on board. Because of the US-based events, this is our call. Get on or get along. This is an invitation to be part of a revolution against terrorism. It starts with Bin Laden and the perpetrators of the WTC hijackings. Who knows what follows? haven: We're acting like a hegemon. We should use this to strengthen institutions of international cooperation like the UN. Reply: UN is over-rated. Is that Mike Hegeman-- used to play linebacker for the Cowboys? haven: Incidentally: BC had a political science forum on US int'l policy in the crisis. Some of these guys have serious experience in the state dept, etc... they're conservative as a group. They universally said that the US is completely misplaying this... and that W. seems to be going against what many of his most intelligent advisors want. Reply: Opinions. Did they REALLY universally say that? You're not exagerating are you? If the President is as dumb as you think he is, this would be the dumbest thing he ever did. I have heard high compliments about his delegation in these matters. I think he is doing a great job. We could do without the wild west analogies and the crusade references but that is nitpicking. The damn bad guys will translate whetever he says any way they want. haven: I really hope W isn't screwing us over, single-handedly. Reply: That makes two of us, however our confidence levels are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
