From: Kai M. Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 06:47:15 MST
Spudboy100@aol.com schrieb:
> Al Qeida surely wasn't destroyed.
So, the prime goal has not been achieved.
> There may be many was to solve a problem as there
> are ways to write a computer program, but it breaks down to elegent
> programming and inelelegent programing.
IMHO, an elegant way would be to improve the self-marketing of the
western principles, which would dry out the basis for hatred and false
beliefs.
> Terrorist attacks against Osama sympathizers would have shocked the
> jihadis into re-thinking their options.
... which would give the extremists propaganda more influence. You can
not demand respect for democracy and human rights by breaking your own
principles. That's like fucking for virginity. If you go into foreign
countries and kill well-known people there, you give their followers
every right(*) to come into your country and kill your people. Once you
drop onto this level, all moral principles become invalid and it will be
extremely difficult to earn back any respect for them.
(*) not by real law, but by their sense of justice, that's for sure.
> Should I break out the hankerchiefs?
No, but neither has the prime goal be achieved, nor is the country now
less dangerous with respect to givinbg shelter to terrorists.
> They and their stupid blue helmets can go to hell.
These stupid blue helmets (they're green these days) help to finish what
the US have begun. They protect the new adminitration against the war
lords, educate the local police how a civil and lawful society works,
etc. Without the UN troops, Afghanistan would immediately fall back into
old habits. Bottom line: The allied forces didn't finish the job,
because it isn't just a military thing.
> Afghanistan is freer now and the murderous regime, which you seem to
> gloss over is kaput.
Please stop your imputations that I would sympathize with dictators or
terrorists. I don't. And I don't support aggression, neither from
terrorist, nor from allies. It's fine that the Taliban regime is
destroyed, but the problem will not be solved until a stable, free and
democratic society has been established with the support and
understanding of the people there. And frankly, hadn't bin Ladin
accidently been in Afghanistan, the US government would have given a
shit about how cruel and gruesome the Taliban are. They have even made
deals with them for many years when this seemed to suit US interests.
It's not enough to destroy the oppressor; you have to support the
development process afterwards and the positive forces of that country.
The only one positive example in history I can remember, where an
oppressive regime has been destroyed, a nation been freed and then be
helped to develop a stable, democratic society is Germany - because it
was needed in the upcoming cold war. That's why Marshall won over
Morgenthau.
> As for
> as hidden bad guys, in Japan, Italy, and Germany, we had a few of those
> folks also, after WW2, securing office. Kurt Waldheim as Chancellor of
> Austria, and yes UN chieftan, comes to mind.
Uh-oh, we should be very careful with accusations in this area. The
whole US space program of the 50s to the 70s has been lead by former
Nazi followers. Von Braun even was a member of the SS and has surely
known where the forced labor in Peenemünde came from. The former german
rocket team got clearance from the US military, approved by the
government, which was clearly against the US law at that time. And if we
really go back into that time, we shouldn't forget the grandfather of
G.W.Bush, who was convicted 1942 for being a collaborator with the
Nazis. I don't think it makes any sense to dig out rotten corpses.
> This hypothesis has been bounced around, and what actually results
> experientially is the Islamic street, the Souk, respects power and its
> steady use.
[...]
> I think you try too hard to please people who may just dislike you no
> matter what you attempt.
Maybe. My concern is the question what will come after the bombing and
the high chance of long and murderous house to house fights against
brainwashed Iraqi soldiers.
Steady use of power would mean to maintain military presence in that
region and thus feed the picture of the evil occupant. The main effect
will be to quicken the extremists groups. That's what I mean by bombing
is not enough as long as you don't win the support of the people.
There are situations, where a military strike is necessary to push the
development into the right direction. But without good aftercare, every
surgery will end in a desaster.
> The success of the Islamist today are a
> reflection of the failure of Arab nationalism, Baathist Socialism, and
> so forth. They are pissed off at the west because they are envious, and
> they seem to feel that if they have all the answers, due to being the
> 'true faith,' then why does the West prosper?
Does it really? Only if you look for material values, i.e. follow the
belief system of the West. Those who didn't have the luck of being born
in a rich country do see our wealthiness, especially the overly open
demonstartion of wealthiness in the US. But they also see that they'll
never have chance to participate in this luxury. It's a common strategy
of the human mind to emphasize the drawbacks of things one cannot have
and turn to things one can have instead. Combined with the impression,
that the rich -we- live at the expense of the poor -them- and only
support our kind -e.g. Israel-, it's easy to understand why muslim
movements are such much en vogue these days.
In my opinion, this vicious circle will endlessly feed the extremist
groups. The more aggressive the West acts, the more aggressive and
dangerous this enemy will become. To break the circle, we either have to
kill every possible follower, which are many millions of people or find
better ways than military strikes.
Kai
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST