>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> You are referring to the difference between the short term and
>long term goals.
>I am actually referring to the difference between what you
>believe we are about and what our officials say we are about.
>They do not mesh.
>I think the long term goal will fail also but not because of
>political bickering, although that will be what it looks like is
>occurring. It will fail because it is ill-defined, nebulous,
>never-ending and hideously expensive in life, dollars and
>well-being of "us" and "them" and counter to our best visions
>for the world we wish to build.
I think you raise some excellent ancillary points as to why it will
fail. I think you underestimate the political aspect though.
I think it's a good idea for people who want peace to act together,
but this does not mean ignoring violent acts or those that cause
them.
>Will they be satisfied when/if 4.5 million Afghanis die of
>starvation this winter? Cycles of terror are maintained by
>incident/vengeance/counter-vengeance. At some point the causes
>of the entire pattern must be addressed outside of vengeance if
>it is to have an end. Vengeance is understandable but not
>always productive.
I said there was a vengeance aspect to this, but it is not entirely
about vengeance. The best hope for millions of Afghanis is if we
eliminate the Taliban, preferably as quickly as possible.
> Yes, and if we had anti-gravity and teleportation we could
>really accomplish the miraculous! Seriously, there is no way to
>by force destroy terrorism and what it grows from. It is a very
>dangerous fallacy to belief this can be done.
I don't agree. What makes the current situation unique was not Bin
Laden, but Bin Ladens MONEY.That and the fact the Taliban who share
a common vision with him gave him sanctuary.
It is our intebt to eliminate both of these factors from the
future.
>Perhaps you have been spoonfed material that supports this
>notion or makes it easy to come too. But it ignores that the
>region has been massively manipulated by the US and other
>countries in ways that have been detrimental to the people and
>against our own principles in many cases. It ignores that many
>in the area have good reason to be angry at US. In that way
>respect it is certainly simplistic. But when I or others
>attempt to bring out those reasons we are considered
>anti-patriotic or not behind the "righteous" "war" sufficiently,
>leftist and so on.
I don't agree that they have a case against us, but it is
irrelevant. The issue is that we were attacked, and we will always
respond.
>Do you care if we have acted and are acting like international
>bullies and destroying homes/lifes/countries for reasons that
>will greatly anger and disgust you?
The government has done some questionable things in the past, none
of which justifies the attack against us.
>Do you care whether we live our ideals outside the US as well as
>inside?
"Our ideals" I think your talking 250 million or so different
versions of this.
>Do you care whether we become an armed camp in order to avoid
>terrorist attacks?
The best way to prevent this is to destroy those who've attacked us
and make it clear any further attempts will have the same results.
>> Al Jazeera is an Islamic media tabloid. They feed the population
>> exactly what they want to hear.
>I see. And our media does not uh?
I don't believe I was defending our media. Not likely to either.
>Of course not. You only care, judging from the above, about
>vengeance and proving it will cost a lot to ever poke the US
>again. Doesn't that seem like a tad provincial attitude?
I don't see anything provincial about it, and I do care about a
great deal more.
But I do think destroying those responsible and making it clear we
will do so again is the best policy.
>How many have risen up in his place?
As I said what made this situation unique was Bin Laden's money and
the santuary the Taliban gave him.
We have learned, at great price, many valuable lessons. I hope we
apply them.
>I don't refuse to consider it. I simply point out it is not all
>of the problem or as much of the problem as you seem to want to
>make it out to be and that attempting to forcefully end that
>"source of the problem" will not work. Do you belief we don't
>spread our own falsehoods and half-truths btw? The idea that
>the lies they tell about us plus religious fanaticism is
>sufficient to explain their hatred and terrorist actions IS such
>a falsehood and half-truth.
They can believe whatever they like. I suggest they also pay close
attention and "believe" there will be hell to pay for attacking the
U.S.
>So. Does your enlightenment extend to western media?
I don't waste my time with mass media.
>I see. Regardless of actual guilt in the one incident you say
>you are about addressing, you have picked parties to destroy in
>order to satisfy vengeance, provide a lasting image of our power
>and believe you (plural) have actually addressed and finished
>with the issue. Got it.
No you don't. We know who these people are, we know where they've
been, we know who their associates are, we know where the money
came from.
They work for Bin Laden.
>Really? Guilt by association is sufficient? Associates
>involved in one attack on X are suficient to believe all attacks
>on X are the work of bin Laden? Whatever.
My fault, I made it too simplistic, see above.
>> The Taliban allowed Bin Laden to have his terrorist bases there,
>> they are in complicity with Al-Quaeda, and will now share their
>> fate.
>Interesting. What of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and so on who
>at one time or another thought the Al-Quaeda network was a
>reasonable think to partially support?
Actually bringing these elements to task for their support is a
good idea.
>Really, I find this sort of reasoning quite empty even granting
>the assumption fundamental assumption.
Most civilized law codes agree with me.
>They are very well entrenched and have a fair amount of popular
>support within Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries in the
>area even now. The civilian populations that are within and
>their supporters will die in large numbers if you been by
>"destroying the Taliban" destroying all who consider themselves
>Taliban. If you mean only removing them from power many will
>still die but not as many. So which do you mean?
They will not be entrenched for long. I am talking about
Afghanistan only. For the moment.
>> We will pursue Al-Qaeda wherever they exist, countries that have
>> terrorist bases (Sudan) may face military action. But I think
>> the current plan is to use agents in other places.
>I see. So much for yuur early seeming claim we were only
>involved in Afghanistan and then would go home. Will you then
>go after Hammas and other groups? Do you think you can end or
>eviscerate so much anger by militarily finding the most actively
>angry and killing them and inflicting whatever "collateral
>damage" it takes? To me this is a very very dangerous and
>twisted fallacy that can do nothing but much more seriously
>inflame the world and endanger all of us (all of humanity not
>just us) and what we hold most dear.
Do you think you can placate these groups and they will all go
away? And at what price?
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT