OT: War Bill, write your congress......

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
See how many suicide bombers Bin Laden can recruit after *that*.

---

The old "Hearts and Minds" tactic 'eh? Well, it's a wonderful idea on a purely humanitarian level, but it isn't going to have an effect on global terrorism.

The Black Tuesday Hijackers weren't poor Afghanis. At least most of them weren't. I haven't examined every name on the list. The notable ones were Saudi and Egyptian nationals. And they weren't even poor. At least a couple of them were actually believed to have been commercial airline pilots at one point. Now maybe Egyptian and Saudi Airline pilots don't make as much as American airline pilots, I really don't know. But I doubt they were on the level of starving poor dirt farmers before Bin Laden pulled them out of their squalor and sent them against the Great Satan America.

For that matter Bin Laden himself is from a rich oil family.

Poverty and starvation doesn't breed terrorism. Hatred does.

Geoshmo

[Saxon]

Poverty doesn�t lead straight to terrorism and extremism, but it can make the trip a lot easier. The very poor don�t know any different, but those reasonably well off in a poor society feel the poverty more acutely. A lot of terrorists have come from middle class families and they want to help the worse off. Living here in Kenya, I have a much better feeling for injustice and poverty than I ever did in Canada. Perhaps these pilots saw the poverty at home and the riches elsewhere and got upset about it.

Hearts and Minds might not stop everyone, but 40 billion of reconstruction and food would earn a lot of good will in Afghanistan. Next time someone gets up to preach against America, people might not listen so closely or they might even stand up in the back row and say �Shut up bin Laden, those guys built the school my kids go to.� It would probably also end up taking out the Taliban, as their form of extremism wouldn�t stand up too well against material affluence. Saudi Arabia has some serious problems, but social unrest is not one of them.

One can look at the treatment of Germany after WWI and Hitler�s rise on the back of resentment to the Versailles Treaty. One can compare that to Germany after WWII and the Marshall Plan. I think Hearts and Minds can work, but it has to go all out. Not one or two million here and there, but a serious financial kick in the ***. And not just food and drugs, but serious construction, things that people see every day. Hospitals, schools, sewers, roads. Match that with Dogscoff�s assassinations (which are an excellent, low key way to punish the wrongdoers and not upset everyone else) and I think we would get somewhere.

Sure, it might not work, but we also have no guarantee that the military options will work either. As such, try and give lots of the contracts to US companies, so at least jobs are created and a lot of the cash goes back in to US economy as taxes. Not all the contracts, you also want to create jobs in Afghanistan, but lots.

Anyway, I will get back to my Technicolor world of dreams�

[geoschmo]

I wish it were as simple as that. And I am sure that spending that amount of money on a country the size of Afghanistan would result in some very real short term improvements. But long term would it do any good?

There is some debate over whether the money spent in the Marshall plan was actually the cause of the spectacular resurrection of post-war Europe. A case could be made that the re-arranging of their political systems had more to do with it. That the increased freedoms of living in democratic, capitalist societies allowed them to help themselves more than the money we gave them helped.

Of course this is not something we could do easily in Afghanistan, unless the current power were removed. That sort of "American Imperialism" is the very thing that the terrorist organizations despise most about us I believe.

Geoschmo

[dmm]

Have you ever read Milton?

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Heard a good opinion on this yestrday.

Rather than bomb the already starving ppl in Afghanistan, how about if NATO responded by filling up their bombers with food and dropping *that* on them. Put a big American flag and a few words in Afghanistani (arabic?) on each parcel so there can be no mistake as to who it's from.

See how many suicide bombers Bin Laden can recruit after *that*.

Obviously it's not a perfect plan (I think you'd need to arrest / assasinate a few leading terrorists as well, just to satisfy the need for justice / revenge) but it's certainly an interesting idea.

---

Your approach is a bit 'literalistic' but definitely pointed in the right direction. Once we have caught up with the individuals responsible for the actual terrorism, we need to improve our relations with the Islamic world and the "Third World" in general. While there have always been fantics around, and always will be, the pool of potential terrorists is far larger than it would be if we 'civilized' Westerners were less indifferent to the poverty and suffering of people who aren't close enough for us to actually see them in our personal lives. A campaign to extend the benefits of "globalization" to the poorest people in the world would be far more effective than eleventy-zillion dollars spent on weapons, security systems, and covert operations to combat terrorism directly. In the meantime, we will have to spend some money on these, though.

But in the end, dmm's observation is important to remember. I feel certain he is referring to Satan's famous line in Milton's Paradise Lost: "'Tis better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven". Yes, some people want power for themselves at literally any cost. But not very many. Since some people are just plain crazy, we will never totally eliminate the threat of terrorism, but we can sure reduce the number of other people who see it as viable option, and become pawns for the really crazy ones.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 18 September 2001).]

[dmm]

Baron, you're almost right about my reference. Actually it is a Star Trek (original series) reference, from the episode with Khan (Botany Bay?). The point in that episode is pretty much what you've said. But then in "The Wrath of Khan" we see him quoting Milton again, and this time it is clear that he is motivated solely by hatred (of Kirk, and, by extension, Starfleet and the Federation) and by revenge.

We should of course try to redress past wrongs, and also extend charity to the less fortunate. But there are very many in the world -- hundreds of thousands, if not millions -- who would take our peace offerings and then spit in our face. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what is right and good, but only that we shouldn't do it simply in expectation of a grateful response. It is well that "a good deed is its own reward" because all too often "no good deed goes unpunished."

[arthurtuxedo]

I don't see why we should use taxpayer money to just hand to people in the 3rd world. What kind of message would that send? Blow up buildings and your people shall be rewarded? Meanwhile countless other 3rd world countries that are more impoverished and that don't harbor terroists get $0.00 from us. What kind of ****ed up idea is that? You can't make anything better by injecting money into a hopeless economy where it will just be corrupted away and vanish in days. You'll only be wasting your money, and sending some pretty bad Messages. One of them is "Look at us, we're the United States. We're better than everyone else. We're fixing your ****ed up country because you can't take care of ourselves. Don't you love us?" I'm no conservative, but I can see that this ultra-liberal, carebear approach to world politics leads nowhere but down.

Since I'm getting so fond of talking about sending Messages in this post, here's the message we should send: "Trade with us, sign treaties with us, we will help your economies, sometimes out of the goodness of our hearts, but don't ever, EVER **** with us. If you do, you'll regret it for the remaining few days you and all your followers have left to live." We need to hunt down and destroy the organization that was involved in the catastrophe, then we need to hunt down and destroy other terrorist organizations that weren't involved so that everybody in the world will know not to ever do something like it ever again.

If these "rogue states" won't hand over the terrorists, we should declare war on their leadership. Not on their people, mind you, but on the fanatical morons that run those countries. They are a blight on the world, and they all deserve to die. They're hateful, self-righteous bigots who exploit their own people and turn them against convenient scapegoats. There will always be people like that in the world, but they should never be allowed positions of leadership in any country, anywhere. The fact that they do lead certain countries is a grave mistake and because of the attack and those governments' refusal to help, the US now has the power, the right, and maybe even the obligation to fix that mistake and make the world a better place. Maybe this sounds too harsh for some people, but it is necessary and it is more than justified.

[Saxon]

Gritsucker,

To reply to your core points, you point to a waste of tax payers� money. It seems to me that you are going to spend 40 billion on this project one way or another. If my way will stop the terrorism and leave a nation with schools, hospitals and good will to the US, is it a bigger waste of money that 40 billion of bombs and an angry state of ten year olds waiting to grow up and avenge daddy?

Geoschmo has some good points, the Marshal Plan worked for many reasons, not just straight cash. However, the essence of the project was �Ok Germany, you made a big mess of things, now we are going to fix it up for you and foot the bill.� This �Carebear approach� has as a result, the US gaining widespread respect from the Germans of that generation and a nice, stable, healthy ally in Central Europe. Compare that to, as I said earlier, the response of the German nation to the punishment of the Versailles Treaty.

Both you and I have advocated for the violent removal of the leadership of terrorist Groups, but I am presenting an idea of what we should do to the rest of the people, so that we don�t have another terrorist attack in ten or twenty years. You are right, the US should do something to make the world a better place. However, you need to be a bit careful how you do it.

Right now, the US is in a frenzy. I am a sub-contractor to State Department and the email I get from them shows a government jumping at slammed doors and fearing it�s own shadow. Everyone wants vengeance. I hear you. So does the rest of the world. But, how you do it is going to have a big impact on how we look at you afterwards. You say you have the right to retaliate and I will not argue with you. What I will say is that you also have an obligation, as a member of the community of nations, to check in and listen to the rest of the world. And you have an obligation to try and make it a better world, not just one that leads to more terrorists later.

To put my colours on my sleeve, I have a dead friend, a Kenyan, who died in the Nairobi Embassy bombing in 98. When I visit her husband and talk to the teenage kids, I remember their mom. I also have a friend who can�t walk straight due to that bomb, a wall fell on him, crushing his leg. A lady I don�t get along with, but who I have to talk to on the phone every day, was blinded by the bomb, but was put back together in a US military hospital in Germany. The vacuum caused by the bomb sucked all the glass out of her monitor and into her face. I remember that when I see the glasses she wears now. I can, and do, intimately share the pain of those who have lost friends and family in New York. I have lived with the results of Bin Laden�s handiwork for over two years now and want to see him dead.

So take a couple of steps back and have a look at what I am talking about. I am looking for a long term solution which hits at some of the root causes of terrorism. I have also put it in a way which, I hope, didn�t offend too many people, even if they disagreed with it. As such, I am taken aback that you have to refer to it as a �****ed up idea.� Don�t like it? That is ok. Just try and say it in a decent way, as we both have the right to hold our views.

[dogscoff]

Just seen th front of this morning's Sun (One of the UK's more ignorant tabloid papers).

Pictures of troops with the headline "Bin loadin' for Bin Laden". Joy. This is the same "news"paper that came up with "Clobba Slobba" {ie Milosovich) a few years back.

Any war can be justified as long as we have a catchy pun for it. I don't think people realise just how hard to invade Afghanistan is. Just ask the Russians...

------------------
SE4 Code:
L GdY $ Fr- C- Sd T!+ Sf-- Tcp-- A% M>M+ MpD! RV Pw Fq+ Nd- Rp+ G-
/SE4 Code
Go to my meagre SEIV pages to generate your own code.

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I don't think people realise just how hard to invade Afghanistan is. Just ask the Russians...

---

...or the British before them.

The only invaders that had any amount of success in Afghanistan were the Mongols, and they were pretty much just passing through on their way to pillage the rest of Asia and Europe.

Geo