>We still have a right to defend ourselves and retailiate, I believe.
"1. Find the person(s) responsible for the Sept 11 atrocity and kill
him/them."
I believe that is the Intent in this instance. Not to mention retaliation
for the other terrorist attacks perpetuated against US targets. The US
Government is attacking the Taliban, a government organization that
officially endorses terrorist acts against the United States. They are not
attacking the Afghan people, although, unfortunately and disheartingly, some
are being killed. The Taliban rose to power on the weapons the US left
behind in Afghanastan when they were helping the Afghan people fend off an
outright invasion by a communist superpower (russia). A superpower which
was intent on expansionism, should the US have remained uninvolved until the
rest of the world was communist and we stould absolutely no chance in hell
of defending ourselves? Does not seem a wise decision. What was unwise was
leaving the Afghan people to fend for themselves after they fought off the
Soviet troops, this was when the Taliban acquired its political hold. The
US should have provided assistance, much as it did in Germany and Japan
after World War II and help to set up a stable capitalist non despotic
government.
"2. Give up on breaking terrorists. There are too many and they hate
Americans.
Eventually they'll die. Maybe they might kill each other."
An interesting Position, the most effective participator in non-zerosum
games was tit-for-tat with a random cooperate. That is, in any conflict, a
direct system of reciprocity out paced every other strategy for competing,
with the exception of tit-for-tat with cooperate, which would insert a
random bit of cooperation into a battle, preventing two competing
tit-for-tats from spiraling into a continual cycle of reciprocity (you
attack, we attack back, you attack back, etc. etc.) I dont think this is
the time to excersize that restrain, instead we should form a global
coalition to fight terrorism, reap a mortal blow to it, then excersize
severe restrain to military intervention in the future, acknowledging the
correlation to forieng policy and terrorist attacks.
"3. Stop meddling in other countries' governments. (Maybe then, fewer
terrorists will hate Americans, and maybe fewer foreigners will be
annoyed at Americans)."
I agree here, for the most part. Insisting on meddling in NO countries
affairs EVER would be suicidal, and just as illogical as insisting on
meddling in ALL countries affairs ALL the time. As in WWII and fighting the
general communist expansion during the cold war. I do think that about 90%
of our interventions in central and south america should have never been
performed. Foriegn military intervention should be limited to fighting
invasions by strong military powers from expansionist countries.
"4. Let people in other countries find what's appropriate for their own
culture, make their own mistakes, and so on. If they ask for your help,
then give it to them, if you can, and preferably, not with the help of
the government."
I agree, to an extent. But there are certain moral absoluteles that should
be applied. Not all cultures are equally valid. Should it be ok for
certain tribes to mutilate the vaginas of women because its 'thier culture'?
What about ritual sacrifice? What about !Kung Sun who are not considered
'Men' until the bring home the skull of an enemy? Are all cultural concepts
equally valid? Most ethicians and reasonable people would disagree with
that assertation, drawing the line at cultural behaviors that inflict
unwanted pain on people.
There can be no denying that US foreign Policies influence terrorist
attacks, or incite that animosity which leads to terrorist attacks. Fully
one third of all the terrorist attacks in the world are perpetuated against
US targets. The US has no internal civil war and no conflicts with
neighboring countries, the things usually present in countries wrought with
terrorism. America is attacked because of what it does, not what it is. To
be fair, some terrorist attacks are because of what America is, and not what
it does, but these are few and far between, and we certainly are not willing
to revert to poor communist farmers in order to avoid sparse terrorist
attacks. But US foreign policy certainly needs to be re-examined in the
future. Conversely, some foreign intervention is necessary seeing as we
live on the same planet, and a country with enough military might to
threaten us practicing expansionist policies is not something that is good
to sit idly by and watch.
Regards
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:18 MDT