What exactly is an appropriate response?
 

Someone, who I normally respect, told me in all seriousness yesterday that we should go nuclear on Afghanistan. I'd say the war hysteria has been whipped up high enough, maybe its time for some clear thinking. As someone who sees the WTC disaster as a natural outgrowth of our interventionist foreign policy, ongoing Iraqi bombing, and weapons sales to unpopular regimes, I don't think a use of overwhelming force resulting in more civilian casualties is the direction we want to go. So what would be an appropriate response to the terrorism?

A wise man once said, "War is the health of the state." As we can see, since Commie Tommy is off to Washington to be our new Terror Czar, this one is no different. g

You know, the way the question was worded made me think that tw wrote it. ;)

This IS a good question though. Like the Taliban, I want PROOF that Osama is most likely behind this. And I'm hearing a lot of different things, but I have yet to see any clear cut evidence that implicates him. The case is indeed building up, but it seems to be a lot of indirect links here and there. I'm not un-American, but I do believe in innocence until proven guilty. If the US has clear-cut evidence, then he should be brought to the Hague for trial.

(Yep, I said the Hague. I can't honestly see Osama bin Laden getting a fair trial in the United States.)

How do we get him out? Afghanistan is like Iraq with mountains. The US would be wise to learn from the folly of the Soviets. Smart bombs and missile attacks on bin Laden's bases seem like a strong first bet. To lob bombs all over Kabul a la Baghdad would be senseless. As far as from there, our safest bet would be to secure the borders, then surround him.

(Please take into effect that I am a war weenie and that I have no extensive knowledge as to planning a military strike.)

And Griff, I wouldn't necessarily be shocked by your friend's response...unless you've had a debate royale over it and the person is still ignorant of the facts.

Re: What exactly is an appropriate response?
 

The friend's response would only create instability as previously defined. Instability would only drive moderates into the camps of extremists. Those prinicipals, unfortunately not stated by public officials, should be fundamental to how all American view this "war". Sen Warner, R-VA, in the tradition of moderates, was so quietly and carefully lecturing his fellow Senators in those concepts.

I thought I quite clearly described how we get the suspect. Even in Iraq, the US top brass feared to use the 'sneakies'. It was only when the British demanded that their SAS be given a chance at Iraqi Scud launcher did those launchers disappear or fear to be used. The sneakies - not airpower - are the only way to get mobile Scud missile launchers - or even something more difficult as bin Laden. Finally the US military will learn how to use sneakies - something totally new to top brass who may make some serious micro-management mistakes.

'Sneakies' and light military is how one operates in Afghanistan. We are not trying to take the country. Therefore we do not operate a Viet Nam type military that tries to hold land or to create maximum body counts. Our strategic objectives are quite specific and clear - bin Laden and Assoicates, Unincorporated. Furthermore, losses are acceptable - as they were in 1990 Persian Gulf.

Shocking is how many don't have a clue - thinking only with their testosterone rather than using logic. It is why Bush's statement scares much of the international world - although they knew Bush's statement was coming. If I remember the quote, "Either you are with us or your are against us". This even shocked some European governments because they fear America is dominated by the "Let's nuke 'em" extremists. Only American extremists would advocate such dangerous actions. Moderate instead have more intelligence.

Furthermore if you think the whole world sees the American viewpoint, then you better take a look at Greece - a Nato ally.

Are we going to war against bin Laden or Saddam Hussien? Troop movements will be telling, which is why this administration does not want any Cellar dweller - or anyone else for that matter - to know which units have been mobilized.

Did the Taliban get the message? This time they let bin Laden go too far and must understand that a line has been crossed. Maybe they understood this. But the local power is among clerics who have no appreciation of what is beyond their nose and their myopic interpretation of the Koran. Despite their myopia, the Taliban are concerned enough to seek alternative solutions - such as inviting bin Laden to leave when he is ready.

Bush is threading a needle between keeping an international coalition in line and trying to get that message across, bluntly, to the Taliban. This time, Bush's speech demonstrated leadership (finally). He threaded that needle quite well - especially by not committing us to too much. Now, he will have to backup those words by actions. A great leader would never be so ignorant (extremist) as to advocate nuclear weapons or invade Afghanistan as the Soviets did. I would have thought all this was obvious to everyone. But then again, I also forget how so many Americans learn - where so many Americans get their news.

The neat thing about responsible news sources - it convert extremists into moderates - people who can see many perspectives - people who can therefore be tolerant - people who would never let their emotions advocate use of nuclear weapons or "bomb them into the stone age".

Well Syc, I think I'll take that as a compliment. I often like tw's questions but his answers... sometimes not so much... This time we are of one mind though, our response has to be properly directed at the guilty party so as not to push more followers into the arms of the extremists, anything more and I'm joining the candle light vigil crowd. I fear Bush may want to finish off Saddam using the cover this disaster supplies and as much as I would like the stalemate there to end, I'm not sure this is the way. g

Re: Re: What exactly is an appropriate response?
 

I don't think I understood it when you mentioned it the first time, but now I do. And it does sound logical. (As I stressed, I do not know strategic planning...so don't ever ask me to invade a country.)

Quote:

Shocking is how many don't have a clue - thinking only with their testosterone rather than using logic. It is why Bush's statement scares much of the international world - although they knew Bush's statement was coming. If I remember the quote, "Either you are with us or your are against us". This even shocked some European governments because they fear America is dominated by the "Let's nuke 'em" extremists. Only American extremists would advocate such dangerous actions. Moderate instead have more intelligence.

But let's look at this from another logical perspective. We have not seen the use of such weapons in 56 years. Truth be told, the United States would be one step short of insanity to use nuclear weapons. I don't remember what they called it during the Cold War, but with several countries having nuclear capabilities, no country wants to really use them.

Quote:

Furthermore if you think the whole world sees the American viewpoint, then you better take a look at Greece - a Nato ally.

From what I've read in the Greek press, they seem to be of the "We'll hold our end up if we need to, but we're really not big on the fighting" viewpoint...similar to Norway.

NATO, the EU, and the rest of the world can be most helpful to the US in one way--objectivity. Bush gave a good speech last night, and the US seems to be regaining some of its objective perspective. But realistically, after the US has been trying to keep the world in check for so long (good and bad), it's time to give back.

Quote:

Did the Taliban get the message?

They're between a rock and a hard place. Certainly, they do not want to be bombed to smithereens; however, to give up bin Laden would be the evil America winning again.

Quote:

The neat thing about responsible news sources - it convert extremists into moderates - people who can see many perspectives - people who can therefore be tolerant - people who would never let their emotions advocate use of nuclear weapons or "bomb them into the stone age".

What is a "responsible" news source, in your opinion tw? I'm not asking this to be sarcastic, but am curious of your answer.

There is more to it than that - the taliban need his troops and training - i makes up the majority of their army. Afterall the Taliban aren't so much the goverment as the largest warlords at the moment so they cannot afford to lose most of their army.

bin Laden, et al are not a major part of the Taliban Army although I cannot say how much they account for training the Afghan army. But bin Laden assistance, both in ability and money are greatly appreciated. That appreciation may be moreso if bin Laden's people did successfully assasinate Masoud of the Northern Alliance. That suicide bomb may have started the beginning of the end for Afghanistan's civil war. If true and if bin Laden associates were responsible, then the Taliban would be greatly in his debt.

I cannot say enough about PBS Frontline's documentary on bin Laden. It puts the man and his organization in perspective.

Yea your right tw, my bad, its more training and experience than sheer number, i think around 1000 were his though. A trial in the hague? The US hates the hague, they don't control it.

Re: What exactly is an appropriate response?
 

It is not so much use of nukes as much as European fear we will start a bombing campaign or a gun-ho invasion of Afghanistan which will draw them all into it.

Interesting is that the European public has more support for a US position than some of their governments. The same was a problem after a German nighclub bombing by Libyan agents. The US was not permitted to fly over France or Spain to attack Kadaffi. However if an American was in France during that week (as two separate parties detailed), the French people suddenly all spoke English and could not be nicer to Americans. Again, goverments feared the American response but the people loved it.

The has been made painfully obvious so many times. The French could not even send one armored battalion to the Persian Gulf war. Only the British could provide military equipment comparible to America's response. In Bosnia, most of the advanced electronics and even air rescue abilities had to be American. The Europeans have long acknowledged their inferiority, have discussed addressing such problems extensively, and have acomplished almost nothing. They are still depended on Americans even for their own nation's defense. But they still are not apologetic.

The Europeans are even angry at their inability to effect a Middle East peace without American involvement. It is frustrating to them to see a situation deteriorate, not be able to do anything, and watch the Americans become disconnected from any peace process. Yes they understand their impotence, keep talking of solutions, but never quite action on those solutions.


As for the Afghans, they are not worried about being blown to smithereens. Have you seen their capital city? It is still blown to smithereens. Afghanistan is worried about losing access to military weapons, supplies necessary to make those weapons possbile, NGO aid that provided their armies with food and medicine, and money to complete the package. They really are not worried about American bombers bombing rubble just as N Viet Nam had nothing to worry about (as clearly known and delineated in the Pentagon Papers). For moderates in Afghanistan, it is loss of aid from ie. Pakistan that worries them - although they will not admit it.


Irresponsible by categories. Worst are the local TV news reports which ranks up there with Robertson's 700 Club, the National Inquirer, Insight Magazine (if I remember the name of that propaganda sheet), and many of the local daily newspapers that feature, to excess, the latest auto crash on their front page.

A slightly more responsible but still suspect news service include the Daily News (Philly and NYC), NBCs network news such as Dateline and ABC's Barbara Walters interviews which are (both)more interested in how 'You' feel rather than facts technical , many issues of Time Magazine, and Louis Rukiser of Wall Street Week.

Responsible news sources include CBS News (usually, even though their credibility has been weakened by and since when 60 Minutes reports on the cigarette industry were quashed), ABC network news (so many Junior ABC news reporters have gone to other networks to become Senior News bureau managers or star reporters - ie Jeff Greenfield and Fox's Washington bureau chief (name forgotten) because ABC is so chock full of superior talent such as the quirky and always interesting Robert Kurlwich and the legendary Ted Koppel), the BBC, Radio Netherlands, PBS's Nightly Business Report (especially the ethical Paul Kangas), the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and, of course, The Economist magazine.

Jacob Hornburger
 

Jacob Hornburgers got me to leaning toward no military response.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0901f.asp

I don't particularly agree with what he thinks the US should do, but he does make some valid points, and the piece is well-written.

another view
 

Dr. Ron Paul (R-Tx) makes some good points as well.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...1/cr092501.htm

You have to look at how the Taliban came into power in the first place.

After seeing 60 Minutes II tonight, I'm even more pissed at those assholes.

Except for Iran, and maybe Pakistan, most of the Islamic world is now against them. They are running scared, and they know it! Now is the time to present the final ultimatum: turn over bin-Laden, and for that matter all terrorists you are known to be harboring, within 72 hours, or face the wrath of the world. Even Saudi Arabia (who bin-Laden is a native of!) has turned against him. That should make them realize the futility of their cause. Why not? The Taliban don't have any compunctions about the death penalty, as I have seen.

Then if our demands are not met, we go in full force, align with the Rebels (who I would now call Freedom Fighters), and lay waste to the land, but attempting killing as few innocents as possible.



Nevertheless, I would trade 1000 Afghani deaths for one more American!

I predict the Taliban would not be in power for one week longer after we made these demands!

I don't have all the answers but...
 

They had CIA support, more fruit of American interventionism.
Which assholes? The CIA? the Taliban? the Russians? Mike Wallace?

I don't think we should confuse government positions for the actual feelings of the people of the Middle East. Bin Laden apparently wants to unite the Islamic people against the west. That would probably mean toppling a bunch of authoritarian states with western ties. With a few poorly placed bombs, we could easily unite people behind this or some other nut.

Hardly suprising since one of his goals is the overthrow of that regime.


I'm sure the State appreciates your contempt for human life. Seriously though, it is in our best interest to understand why such hate exists for the US. The Taliban are hideous and should be overthrown by the people of Afghanistan, hell the Afghan people should hate us for helping put those maniacs in power. Our support for the Taliban when the Russians were there may be a legitamite cause for intervention but I'm thinking that we've meddled enough.
I cannot make any predictions because the law of unintended consequences is at work here.

hmmm.. I don't like the tone of my post there too much.

Anyway... we seem to be moving the focus from the difficult to hit mobile target of international terrorism to the immobile target the Taliban.

Perchance are you related to Curtis LeMay? Exactly the concepts he would have advocated.

Lets go thougha bit of history and a few naffacts.

a: HT emiddle east was warved up into artifiucal states by the allies after WW2.

b: THese often didn't work with tribes, as in africa.

c: THere is alot of tribal fighting in afghanistan.(which is why half of afghastian hate the other half but get on with the pakistanies)

d: the us gave weapsona nd moeny to the talibanand other to fight thier ideological war.

e: then they just let them rot

suprised, combined with other results of ameican actions on the arab world, including keeping very ugly leaders in pwoer for thier own political benifit that they hate the us???

And the Northern Alliance dosen't have a squeaky record by along shot...please keep that in mind, read salon too.

Dammit, Jag. You made me choke and splurt tea out of my nose.

Yes. Let's do that.

Actually, the map of the Middle East as we know it today was carved up into artificial states after WW1. It was done in a half-assed attempt to clean up the wreckage of what had been the Ottoman Empire. (The utterly corrupt and hopelessly silly Ottoman Empire having foolishly backed the losing team in the recent hostilities.) Most of the carving, by the way, was done by the Europeans, especially the British and the French, not by the United States.

Sure, there were some minor changes to the map after WW2. Iran's borders got shoved around some to keep Stalin happy, and I've NEVER understood where the hell Kuwait came from. But most of the changes were changes of government, not territory. (With the enormous and unfortunate exception of Israel, but that wasn't our fault either.)

True enough. Again, you can thank the Europeans for that.

Yeah... but it's always been that way. Afghanistan has been the monkey house of southern Asia for over 2,000 years. You aren't trying to suggest that this is a recent development, are you? Or somehow attributable to anything the US has done?

Well... yeah, that's true, as far as it goes. We gave weapons and money to the mujahideen so the mujahideen could fight their ideological war. We were busy trying to bankrupt the Soviet economy by forcing them to compete in an insane arms race that they couldn't afford, and this seemed like a "buy-one-get-one-free" deal for us. And I'm sure that, at some level in the US government, people were REALLY enjoying the irony of watching the Soviets use conventional troops to fight a guerrilla war. (Jesus! Didn't those dumb bastards learn anything from watching the US wallow around in Vietnam a decade earlier?)

I wouldn't go THAT far, Jag. The US has been the largest contributor of foreign aid to Afghanistan since they gave the Soviets the boot in '91. And that aid continued to flow even after the Taliban took over most of the country. As far as I know, most of our aid to Afghanistan has had very few strings attached... why should it? There's really nothing there worth having. We're just trying to feed people, and maybe proselytize a little western-style consumerism while we're at it.

As opposed to what? Replacing them with a different set of very ugly leaders? We've never dabbled in Syrian politics, for example, and the result was Hafez Assad. In Saudi Arabia, the western-supported House of Saud is surely as unsavory a group of thugs and scumbags as you're likely to find anywhere, but what would you replace them with? Some things just won't fix, Jag, and it's a little unfair to blame the US for the native inability of certain regions of the world to build themselves a civil society.

The US cannot be blamed in any way, shape, or form, as to HOW this all started. Britain and France are the real culprits. ("Okay, France, you get Syria and Lebanon. Britain, you get Palestine, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Transjordan.") But we can't deny that we added fuel to the fire, particularly after the formation of Israel.

(And this is why I get so irritated at the French's attitude. They were the worst when it came to colonization. They got run over in WW2, and driven out of Indochina. And now they get all pissy when the US wants to go on a crusade. I don't get it...At least Britain steps right in, as witnessed in this situation and Kosovo.)

At least from what I've seen, there has been a sense of "enlightenment" as a whole on the part of the US, Israel, and the Arab world in the past decade. Assad's son, who is now in power, is not nearly as big of a hard-ass as his father. King Hussein mellowed after the Gulf War. King Abdallah is rather moderate. And it doesn't hurt that Queen Noor (or rather the former Queen Noor) is an American. Kuwait is the most westernized Arab country, with maybe the exception of Turkey. (Hell, Turkey is trying to join the EU!) At this point, both would probably do anything to help the US (particularly Kuwait). Iran (although not Arab) is lightening up under Khatemi(?). Arafat has moved to diplomacy. Israel has given the Palestinians more control over the West Bank and Gaza (although that is currently strained).

And our Baltimore buddy made a good point--Afghanistan has been a mess since forever. The British fought over it in the 19th century. Then infighting. Then the Soviets. Then more infighting.

No, the Northern Alliance does not have a squeaky clean record. NO ONE has a squeaky clean record anymore. And I fear we'll only use the Northern Alliance as a pawn in the end.

I'm no Curtis LeMay, but someone did say if you want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, bomb them with FOOD, not explosives.

Huh? In the past day I have seen pictures of Afghan refugees amassed near their borders. One was a young man sleeping on hundreds of sacks of rice clearly marked 'GIFT OF JAPAN'. Another showed an Aghani woman sitting on a can of vegetable (cooking) oil, labeled 'GIFT OF U.S.'. Yet this country has the means to arm practically every loyalist (and his kid) with an assault rifle?!

Our quarrel is not with the innocents. But the Taliban is something different. This is undoubtedly the most repressive regime since Saddam, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, the list goes on and on.

I am going to post a link that should convince you of who we're dealing with here. WARNING! It a very disturbing video of an Afghan woman being executed for the (alleged) crime of adultery. Do not click it if you are faint of heart.

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/c...ew.asp?ID=6138

How do you deal with animals with guns?

NBN

Pardon my earlier post, terribly written, terribly worded, full of spelling msitakes and i mixed up WW1 and 2...*reminds self nto to write for at least 2 hours after geting up* I literally did get out on the wrong side of bed(which is why i promptly hit a wall then fell down) and it wasen't my bed either, forgive me for that pile of trash.

If you go though that though, i never at any point suggested any of those in particualr except for thsoe that were directly related to the US were the US's fault. As for not letting them rot, they certainly did nothing to assit is the setting up of some kind of organised goverment afterwards which is why thier weapons turned inwards. Although at the same time i know that is not an easy thing to do, particaurly politically when you still have to beat the godless commie scum.

What i blame the US for mostly is meddeling in the affiars of the middle east continually for either ideological or economic gain (particualry oil countries), and this meddeling has often resulted in loss of lives, in exchange for easier access to bessed oil, which says something for their value on arab life, clearly the US thinks american life is far ore valuable that the lives of arabs. (unfair i know but true) It is this meddeling that has most of the arab world royaly pissed off, they feel marginalised and powerless, big bad america can just wade in and fuck them up whenever it suits them, hell i'd be pissed too

I agree entirely that taliban should be removed, and removed fast but the ROOT cause has always been outside interference. Manby countires in that reigon want a taliban-style clensing as they cause it. That kind of extremism exists because they are
a: living in poverty
b: powerless
People don't do suicide runs when they have a decent standard of living, extrmeisim requies certain conditions whcih the US has at least done(and the rest of the western world is equally t5o blame) nothing to fix, if not artifically kept in place for gain. As for propping up the anti-soviet forces that was as bad as Vietnam, jsut not as politically dangerous. Having been to vietnam i swear whoever ordered that should be forced to say sorry to all the horribly malformed kids that are a result of agent orange then have him walk though a ricepadd full of landmines.

The Northern alliance may be another taliban if it gets cocked up again. I fear they're gonna run in there, knock off the leaders etc then piss off again and let it fester. The US and other western economies rely on exploitation of third world coutries and now hat one group of those has a common banner, money nad organisation (Jihad/Extremist Islamic) its like a gurilla French Revolution.

Marxist Class war on a global scale. 'nuff said.

BTW NBN, Iran et al are jsut as bad when it comes ot public executions....Do you support the death penalty? Just out of question.

In a country where the literacy rate is 31%, do we think they read what is on the can? Furthermore, what language is written on the can?

Jag, until I get into office, this is gonna go on going on. We support one revolutionary faction because it supports our interests. A generation later, we support a new revolutionary faction to counter the old one. A generation from now, the same thing will happen.

I'm serious, first thing I do if I get elected is to put up a huge freakin' brick wall around the country. If my administration got involved with anyone else, it would be after due consideration, and if it was a situation where we were needed.

Kosovo, and the problem with the genocides there: Needed.
Desert Storm: Not really needed.

Desert Storm was about political gain. Poppa Bush, I'll wager, wanted to have some American presence there, regardless of size. He was with Reagan, he knew of the Contras and US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. All the same, had we just stayed in that night, ordered some pizza or something, played Atari, Desert Storm might not have been needed. Iraq would have been weaker, Iran would have been weaker, and because we sayed out of the whole thing, they wouldn't have come after us.

(NOTE: This is armchair political science going on here. If you have to blast me...make it one head shot, quick and clean. Thank you.)

When it comes to how things are, one quote looms foremost in my mind. From "Jurassic Park" of all places. I might get the wording wrong, but the core idea is the same. I leave you with this:

"You were so preoccupied with if you could, you didn't stop to think if you should." - Jeff Goldblum

Mike in...hmm...2020 sounds like a nice year. There we go. "Mike in 2020. Together, we can leave them the hell alone."

~Mike

Well......Personally i think the people we shoudl put a wall around its the fuciing administration, although ill admit thier handeling was better than i expected and better than clinton with the embassy bombings.

The porblem is of course meddeling often seems to be needed to uphold wahtever laws we feel like (liek human rights)

NOw i you took one stnad you could sasy we shoul *never* intervine because we are simply imposing our standards on other pople, and in some cases, that would be a better course of action, in others, itobviously woudl not.

The UN, not the should step into places like bosnia and help out, but hte US should not fuck around in the middle east to play with oil prices.

Minimal interference in other peoples affiars, no ideological wars like vietnam, no keeping in for instance the egyptian leader for political benifit. I mean the only reason Hussien is still there is because they fear an Islamic revolution there if they remove him.

While it will never really be done we must tackle the roots of this hatred, which is impoissble to overcome inequality. Idealsitc as it is exploitation of the rest of the world by the big western ones *must* stop. Time will eventully do this mostly, and i believe Nanotech will completely nuke what is our economy/society today when it finally comes to fruit. Oh fuck im' gonna live though all this...

I hold big hopes that nanotech will break the back of corperations and the stranglehold they have today, god knows everyhting else is failing. (-1 Offtopic, Troll)

I've heard that said about Hussein, but who really knows for certain. Apparently, the US government thought Hussein's own people would take him down, or so it has been said. When asked about taking Hussein, Bush and Schwarzkopf have said that the main objective of Desert Storm was ridding Kuwait of Iraq, not to take Hussein. Given their progress on the ground, and given what has happened since, perhaps it should have been done. But hindsight is 20/20.

You seen three kings?
THe point in that is true, rebels in Iraq thought they were gonan get US backing, the nthe US left and they got slaughtered. HUssien is sane, they can control him pretty wel lif not as well as they'd like and he won't do anyhting too serious. Another Taliban is a much bigger royal pain in the ass.

Thats a good point Jag outside of creating the no fly zone we left the Mudan (?) hanging.

On the point about controling Hussein... according to a piece Alexander Cockburn did for the New York Press Madeline Albright gave the fundementalists a huge public relations tool, when she maintained in an interview that yes controlling Hussein was worth the lives of 1/2 a million Iraqi kids. I'm not sure what show Leslie Stahl had back then maybe the CBS 60 minutes? His background piece is well worth the short read. Cockburn has something that much of the left IMHO lacks, consistency. He is a hardcore leftist and peace activist who opposed the Bush I Gulf War and Clintons Balkan foolishness. Anybody got a reliable source on a KLA bin Laden connection?

http://www.nypress.com/14/39/news&co...ildjustice.cfm

I'm gonna look for the transcript on that Stahl interview, if anyone has a suggestion of where to look speak up.

The emirate of Kuwait became independent in the mid-1700s, IIRC.

I'd expect the US govt to value US lives over the lives of foreigners; US lives are to some degree the US govt's job to protect. Nothing wrong with that.

And what outside interference would that be? The Taliban took Kabul in 1996. The Soviet Union had been gone since 1989, and with it American backing for anti-Soviet forces. No, the Taliban is a strictly local phenomenon.

Just because Bin Laden and the Taliban blame America for the troubles of the Islamic people doesn't mean there's a whit of truth to their claims. America is just a convenient scapegoat. Neither the USs support for Israel nor the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait harms anyone in Afghanistan.

Rusotto....go lower...far.lower.
Socioeconomic differences. You don't see many extremists in irst world counties, wonder why...

Extremism requires certain conditions, such as poverty and much of the povery in the middle east could have bene avoided if the US wasen't so interesting in playing games to its advangeage. As for afgansitan, leaving a country awash with arms after youv'e won another point on the ideological scoreboard probably didn't help.

Islamic extremism is the rallying point for this anti-first world anger. Thsoe reasons you listed down the bottom further my point, the real anger isin't about anyhting that petty, its about being made powerless fools by the first world. People don't liek when thier nation has its strings pulled.

you ALL are wrong.

there are just a lot of people that aren't having enough SEX. plain and simple.

i'm too busy having SEX and hacking around on computers to HATE. i like SEX. war can kill me. i would rather have SEX. that's what these guys need to do. GET LAID.

But it's important to note there are very FEW pure extremists anyway. And there are more extremists in the first world than one may think--Northern Ireland is a perfect example.

Quote:

Extremism requires certain conditions, such as poverty and much of the povery in the middle east could have bene avoided if the US wasen't so interesting in playing games to its advangeage.

I completely disagree. These countries were not made poor by the US. Did the US make them poorer? Sure. Did the US stick its nose in where it didn't belong. Sure. But WHO is responsible for the beginnings of this widespread poverty? I'd wager a combination of colonialism and their own people. Take away the debt to the US, and there would probably still be leftover debt. And as far as playing games, look what Australia did with the Tampa refugees...taking advantage of refugees from a country that is fighting internal strife (Indonesia). No one is innocent...

Quote:

As for afgansitan, leaving a country awash with arms after youv'e won another point on the ideological scoreboard probably didn't help.

But by that rationale, then the Soviets are responsible too. After all, a lot of their leftover equipment has been used in Afghanistan since they left (although I hear it's in bad shape).

While there are very few 'Pure' Extremists there are one hel of alot of symththisers and supporters. And look at northern ireland, opressed, often impoverished irish, gee that fits my model rather well wouldn't you say? (Yes i've been there) The enitre community supports the 3-4 IRA members in each community, its similar in much of the middle east.

There are quite a few regimes in the middle east the US supports that could easily be called draconian, the reasons i'm sure are not pure. From a stance i could say that the US interfering iwht who leads *any* country is wrong, i mena after all it is the poepl e of htat country, wheither through free elections, revolution etc who leads their country wihtout the artifical effect of a few hundred million in aid to the currant regime. Particualry in oil countries.


I don't think Russia intended to elave *anything* behind. Russias reason was teritorial gain, the US just wanted to piss them off, Afghastian was a pawn for thier use, then to be dumped.

In the Middle East its not so much an issue of poverty (which does exist) as power, many of thsoe nations and tier islamic elements feel that they are powerless pawn to the US (which they are) and resent this (oddly enough). If some state next to philadelphia started throwing money around in your internal politics so they could build a nuclear waste dump in your land or something wouldn't you be a tad pissed off too.

I'm not saying anyone is innocent, think Australias handling of the Tampa is an unexcuseble shame and a breach of human rights and the technicality playing bastards in Camberra who have shunted around these poor people for political gain shoudl be forced to stand down..

No, I wouldn't say that. I don't think what is happening in Northern Ireland is a matter of SES, it's more a matter of religious and territorial issues.

Quote:

From a stance i could say that the US interfering iwht who leads *any* country is wrong, i mena after all it is the poepl e of htat country, wheither through free elections, revolution etc who leads their country wihtout the artifical effect of a few hundred million in aid to the currant regime. Particualry in oil countries.

Most of the oil countries are controlled by rich emirs and kings, who have been in power for umpteen gazillion years...well before the US was around.

Quote:

I don't think Russia intended to elave *anything* behind. Russias reason was teritorial gain, the US just wanted to piss them off, Afghastian was a pawn for thier use, then to be dumped.

A pawn for both countries. As were all the former countries of the Eastern Bloc. There were plenty of countries played by the US, including Iraq. Certainly, it wasn't right. But if we're trying to remedy the injustices against third-world countries, we need to get down to the origins and go from there.

Quote:

In the Middle East its not so much an issue of poverty (which does exist) as power, many of thsoe nations and tier islamic elements feel that they are powerless pawn to the US (which they are) and resent this (oddly enough).

For the record, all middle eastern countries are considered third world, with the exception of Israel.

I wouldn't say it is as much of a pawn situation anymore. I don't blame Arab countries for getting paranoid, given how much money is given to Israel. At the same time, the US has had relatively good relations with most of the Arab world for the past decade. The world has bitched at Israel for years...but no one made any initiative to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the table until recently. Of course, that also depends on Israel's president of the month.

Quote:

If some state next to philadelphia started throwing money around in your internal politics so they could build a nuclear waste dump in your land or something wouldn't you be a tad pissed off too.

We already have a nuclear waste dump next to Philadelphia...it's called New Jersey. ;)

From what I’ve seen religion isn't so much the issue in Northern Ireland as just Irish vs. English, nothing more to it. All have done pretty badly under virtual martial law, and they are all very pissed off. The IRA has intricate early warning and slow=down systems with which to hide people and equipment in the suburbs that require the complete cooperation of one hell of allot of people. The reason those people do that is because they are very, very pissed off at the British. Same deal in Palestine for example. My point was that for extremism to be successful you need someing for poeple to be very angry about, tw has covered alot of this stuff.
Is United Arab Emirates considered third world?(genuine question, i wouldn't have thought so)

What would you say that is?
I'd say class war.

My typing should improve now that I have a spellchecker on here again. Apologies.

Cultures is a big issue too, its been said many a time that alot of Islamic countries are annoying becuase their own culture is being lost, a byproduct of globalisation.

I posted the URL for Blair's speech on another thread. He actually covers Palestine and Northern Ireland in it.

Quote:

Is United Arab Emirates considered third world?(genuine question, i wouldn't have thought so)

You may have a point there...I haven't seen a recent map of the third world countries.

Quote:

Cultures is a big issue too, its been said many a time that alot of Islamic countries are annoying becuase their own culture is being lost, a byproduct of globalisation.

I think it's possible that a country can retain its cultural diversity while becoming a greater part of the world society. I think Europe will experience this type of situation in the coming years as well. Granted, no one should be force-fed western culture...but in our current world, isolationism is nearly impossible to achieve.

Seriously, tell me about Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczinsky and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and....

We've got all sorts of extremists in the US. Most of them in the "mostly harmless" category, and thus aren't news.

Stuff and nonsense. Poverty is not a requirement for extremism (bin Laden is not poor, for one thing), and the US didn't cause poverty in the middle east in general nor Afghanistan in particular.

The weapons left are, for the most part, Russian. And would you care to try and take them away?

The First World's mere existence is an affront enough. The US is still not at fault.

*sighs*

They don't have the support of entire nations like Bin Laden does do though do they?


Anger at something, poverty is one of the most common, look at the rise of Hitler after WW1 or the Russian Revolution. When things get bad people turn to those who look like providing answers or at least a scapegoat (Hitler: Jews, Bin Laden: America)

Wait till a US plane is taken out by a US made stinger missile. Watch the CIA squirm then :p . But that is not the issue, it’s that they just completely left after getting what they wanted. It was like leaving the anti-sadam forces in Iraq to get slaughtered after BushSr pulled out.

More about not being part of it then it existing.

In the somewhat-related department, I wrote an essay regarding debt relief a little over a year ago. It was during the IMF/World Bank protests in Washington last April.

While Afghanistan is giving bin Laden refuge, I wouldn't necessarily say that he has the support of an entire country. The same thing with Pakistan.

This just came to my mind. The "turning point" with bin Laden seems to be the US being on Saudi soil during the Gulf War. Now then, Iraq went INTO Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (at Dhaharan). So, here is an aggressor (a Muslim country) going onto "sacred soil" (Saudi Arabia). Iraq probably could have taken some Saudi territory if they hadn't encountered American forces. So I guess my question is, why is bin Laden going headfirst after the US, when his own "people" invaded his homeland? It seems a bit contradictory. Or was he already looking at the Americans as "aggressors" and the Iraqis as "freedom fighters?" But if that were the case, was he agreeable with the invasion of one Muslim country (Kuwait) by another (Iraq)?

As I’ve said before its things like that that show that his apparent motives are far more global than such incidents. General dislike of the US for other far bigger reasons shines though. I’m starting to think it’s more cultural than economic. Islam fears being eroded by an apparently unstoppable wave of western culture which is causing them o go more extreme in an effort to protect their own culture. Thoughts? From another perspective I doubt it would do his Muslim popularity rating much good if he starting bombing Arabs in Iraq. Although Sadam himself I thought would have been a popular target.

I've heard it said on several occasions by common folk much like us.

My opinion on Western culture is this: For all of its excesses, 21st century Western culture as a whole is pretty good. We have unprecedented technology in various sectors. Although I cannot speak for the rest of Western society, the majority of Americans have a decent standard of living. (Although 15% of Americans living in poverty is 15% too much.) Communication and access to information are at their greatest point in history, and continue to expand. And overall, again IMO, the 2001 Western world is an enlightened one.

Quote:

Islam fears being eroded by an apparently unstoppable wave of western culture which is causing them o go more extreme in an effort to protect their own culture. Thoughts?

Western culture, particularly American culture, is high on material excess (although maybe not as much as it was 15 years ago). As an example, I will use Japanese exchange students that came to SEMO to study in 1994-95. Japanese culture, though becoming more Western, is still rather reserved by our standards. Some of these kids came over and were simply overwhelmed. They ate up as much of it as they could--smoking cigarettes, cutting class, dyeing their hair, piercing various body parts, etc. Now granted, this is merely an example, and does not represent all Japanese exchange students at SEMO (or around the world for that matter). But from my standpoint, given that Islam is not high on excess, some Islamic countries may look upon our culture with shame. In turn, they may fear that their young ones will be swallowed up by Western culture, hence diluting the future of their own culture. It doesn't help that we practically force-feed our culture to the world at large, so perhaps they feel as if we are downgrading their own culture. Although it doesn't justify terrorism, I can certainly understand if they feel that way.

*feeling philosophical* At the same time, regardless of what a certain country's laws dictate, I believe that all people have a strong element of free will. At the same time, the human race is extremely gullible. If you're a young kid living in, say Iran, and you see the US (a mouthpiece for the world) hawking Western culture, and you see people that are enjoying it, then to some degree, it makes you want to join the rest of the gang. At the same time, if you're being told how bad it is, I believe to some degree that that will make you all the more curious.

I am now going back to school to get a sociology degree...I always did like sociology better than philosophy. ;)

Hm, i'd say most of that isn't so much cultural as just tech. They don't have to be interrelated. One can lead to another and they are obviously joined at the hip but..

It seems every issue from aids in africa to 911 that i have a long discussion comes down to globalisation.


Now THAT is interesting. Igorence is bliss comes in. You could argue that if people no nothing better then they will be happy, which is very orwellian. WIsh i had itme to continue this now but homework is calling.

You keep trying to find a reason to pin responsibility on the US and the first world. It isn't there. Islam in general is not responsible for this attack; neither bin Laden nor the Taliban represents Islam in general, and _both_ have been denounced (the Taliban even BEFORE Sept 19th) by Islamic countries and Islamic religious leaders. Osama Bin Laden is even alienated from his own family -- his nephew was in the US, studying at a university, on September 11th. Further, Afghanistan is completely unthreatened by any wave of western culture, as they have successfully managed to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

In Afghanistan, the US didn't leave anyone to get slaughtered once we pulled out. The US were never there in force; it provided weapons and who knows what else, but it wasn't like Desert Storm. Furthermore, the US backed side _won_. The Soviets pulled out in 1989. Then the anti-Soviet alliance fell apart and civil war ensued. This, too, is not the fault of the US (nor even the Soviets, who had sufficient problems of their own). The Taliban wasn't even formed until well after that.

As for Iraq, the US had no obligation to ensure the victory of the anti-Saddam forces. Desert Storm gave them an opportunity, but they weren't able to take advantage of it.

I never said Islam was, as an entity, responsible. Are you seriously telling me there is little or no support in Lebanon, Palastine, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Many other states for the Taliban and Bin Laden? Many want a Taliban style revolution! (interesting naffact: aparantly the footage of Palstinians celebrating shown on CNN was from 1991)

The PLO, Hamas, Hezbolah(how u spell it?)Islamic Jihad etc, support Bin Laden and are closely interlinked, they have mainstream suppot in the Islamic world.

And to assume there is no cultural, economic or political basis for what they did, they why did they?

I stand by what i said, marginalised, often impoverished people a ripe for exploitation by extremist movements, viola Middle East.

Well, that would explain professional wrestling, wouldn't it?

Hmmmm... marginalised, impoverished people exploited by lunatics, you say? Yes... just like St. Petersburg in 1917, eh Jag? Or China during the Great Leap Forward? Or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? I'm sorry to have to use such old examples, but the "inevitable victory of the historical dialectic" got the shit kicked out of it by "decadent bourgeois capitalism" a while back, so I had to reach back several decades to find what I was looking for. (Odd that no more recent examples of the forward march of Socialism are available, don't you think?)

Yes, yes... many interesting parallels between the tactics employed by the Taliban and those employed by the "progressive" forces of international Socialism... let's discuss them in another thread sometime?

-1 Offtopic (But intensely satisfying)

Socialism now seems to consist of 14 year olds with cuban flags painted on running around chanting slogans waiting till they can get their morgages and MBAs..

I think people found they prefered having porches and aircon to equality.

Khmer Rouge? Wouldn't relaly call them socialist, after being there i'd just call them evil.

As for Russia, that wasen't Marxism, that was Lenism, Marx wanted a democracy of sorts, Lenin wanted a dictator. Yes i know this is a very old line.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I proposed a quandary of the human mind. If people see Western culture, they can decide whether they want more of it or if they just abhor it. As I said though, if you see others joining in, and it looks so great...not to mention if you're being told how bad it is by your leaders...gullibility can come into play.

Sorry I didn't mean to say you were, its just a train of thought that came out of that statement, in that people *innately* want to be free. My lovely habit of going off on odd tangents rears its ugly head again.

You have a point, I know at least one Fundamentalist Christian sect a bit like the Amish who let their kids go explore the world for a year when they turn 18 then let them choose whether to return or not, which if you ask me is a pretty good system, depending on how brainwashed they already are and stuff I spose.

I saw the best cartoon today. It was this general standing in front of rows of shiney missles, tanks, planes lined up, warships along the dock. A soldier comes up to him and goes "wouldn't it just be cheaper to eradicate poverty?"