From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 11:52:45 MST
From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
> Then you really have to look at a bigger picture. If
> going into Afghanistan saved us being hit a 2nd time
> by the Al Qaeda what is the cost for that relative to
> the cost of going into Afghanistan?
The bigger pictures is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not
complaining about the cost of going into Afghanistan. Rather, I'm
pointing out the huge disparity between the steps the US is willing to
take to address problems in the short term (invading a country, taking
out a current terrorist group) vs. addressing problems in the long
term (spreading democracy, stabilizing fragile areas, stamping out
global poverty, ignorance, and oppression).
I believe that terrorism is more dangerous than individual terrorists.
We can kill all the terrorists we want, but unless we go after some of
the root causes of terrorism, it's pointless.
Conversely, so long as the US props up dictators who oppress their own
populace, the US is investing in future terrorism. So it seems to me
that we're taking short-term action against terrorists at the same
time that we're promoting terrorism in the long term. Not very
clever.
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 11:55:33 MST