Well said, brah. I'd like add one more thing: let's not forget there's economic/profit-making motive behind every political action.
Those 9/11 guys may not be poor, but they may be fighting for their brothers who are poor "because of America". Also, some of you mention reasoning with terrorists as a way to fight terror. That would be great if you assume that the only reason they are fighting us because of perceived injustices committed by us. It's possible that all those perceived injustices are just what they use to excite the masses. If the extremist fundamentalists really have an agenda to make the world one big Islamic theocracy no amount of negotiating or being nice will help. If their agenda is a world Islamic theocracy we can't negotiate because that's not acceptable to us. If their agenda is the destruction of Israel we can't negotiate or if they simply want us out of the Middle East it's not going to happen. This problem is VERY complex with lots of players with many different agendas. Some overlap and some don't but it's not one problem. If you have two resonable sides that just misunderstand each other you can probably have talks. But you can't negotiate with someone with an extreme agenda.
Everyone in the world needs to believe in the same thing, and play by the same rules. It will take that one, inspiring leader to convince everybody of this necessity. For expediency and efficiency sakes, everyone in the world will be assigned an identification-numbered tag in order to minimize any destructive tendencies an individual may harbor against the whole. There will be nothing to fear when everything is made known.
Umm...I am pretty sure you're wrong here, but I will just ask for raw numbers to support your thesis... Agreed. I think all options should be readily available, you can't deal with everyone the same way. Sometimes you might have to use violence, other situations would require more diplomacy, etc. LOL!
I'd rather have American hegemony and a maintenance or increase in terrorist plots than kowtow to the extremists around the world and have a reduction in terrorist plots. So, even if your premise is correct, and acceding to their demands would eliminate or reduce our problems with terrorists, it is not a choice I would make. America is doing pretty well with the status quo, so maybe it is the other side that needs to bow to our will if they desire peace (which mirrors the Palestine/Israel situation by the way).
I think it depends on what their demands are. Some of their demands are perfectly reasonable and justified. I don't think we should keep supporting certain dictatorships just because terrorists want us to stop supporting the dictatorships. I don't have a problem stopping the support of the dictatorships.
Excellent point. There are no easy solutions to terrorism. I think the big problem is people are considering terrorism as an ideology, a prime cause, when it is a symptom. I don't believe we can ever do away with terrorism as there will always be some disgruntled group willing to use it. What we can do is try to reduce the numbers of people willing to engage in terrorism. IMO that does mean winning hearts and minds. Something not easily done if you're engaging in collective punishment of whole groups of people just to get at the few ones extreme enough to use terrorism.
interesting idea. what do you is the root of terrorism? what makes a person guilty of terrorism without actually participating in the planning and carrying out of the plan? What needs to be done in order for them to change their views?
I think many Americans from all political spectrums would agree. It's a question of whether it's sustainable or tenable without a gargantuan military budget. Should we follow down Bush's path, there will be more Israel-like incursions into seemingly neutral countries as a response to our attempt to curb terror through violence. If we like our way of life enough to oppress, then how willing are we to fight for it?
Excellent post. As we saw in N. Ireland and S. Africa terrorism while not 100% deleted, declines greatly when historical injustices are rectified. The same will happen when Israel decided to return to the pre-1967 borders or to have a truly multi-ethnic multi religious state. They just can't win more territory through military force.
I disagree. The situations are very different. If Israel went back to pre-1967 borders, new demands would be made. The militants and extremists want Israel wiped clean off the Earth. The Catholics in N. Ireland and blacks in South Africa never made these kinds of demands.
There were exremists in both Ireland and S. Africa that had similar sentiments. As has been said before, during the Oslo talks when Israel agreed to scale back their settlements on the W. bank, not even to the 1967 borders there was a period of relative peace. Extremists still were calling for the same thing, but peace prevailed. The same goes with regards to the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel. Extremists still didnt' like Israel, but no new demands were made by main stream ruling groups, and the agreements held. When people talk about extremists not wanting Israel as a neighbor ever, we need to remember that a few years ago the party in the majority in Israel voted to never recognize Palestinian state. So their are extremists on both sides with the same goal. The extremists on both sides need to be marginalized, and have their support cut from them. A return to the '67 border would definitely be a strong step in that direction.
Not even that, but imagine the drain on resources and the loss of GDP. Everyone forgets that war is a big negative on economies....and it's no different for us. How many American jobs have been a casualty of Bush's agenda...dollars that would have been able to reduce interest rates (by limiting the deficit and not having to flood the market with t-bills/bonds), create jobs, and restore the gulf coast. Meanwhile, countries like China and India get to focus on growth and catching up. The short-sightness of Bush is remarkable. He really might go down as the President who brought about the beginning of the end of America's glory.
We were only going to stay at peak power and influence for so long. But Bush accelerated what should have been a very gradual slide into a stumble.
we need to fight terrorism with p*rnography the terrorists have viewed women as 2 eyes and a burka, so they must have some pent up angst. give him them some vivid entertainment or barely legal dvds thats how america wins, we use our pop culture to destroy them!
There is a HUGE difference between these actions and the current war in Iraq. 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan. Kuwait, we drove Iraq out. SK, we defended their country. Pearl Harbor, we reduced the Japanese Empire to a fraction of its previous self. All of these actions were justified and all of them were responses to agression. We were the agressors in the current Iraq war. Iraq did not have the capacity to attack Iran, much less the US, in 2003.
