Can America finish terrorism alone ?

[aneeshm]

Watching the news today , I just had to post this .

How many here actually believe that America can go against terrorists alone ? How many people think that war after war after war is the solution to the terrorism menace .

Living in India , terrorism is nothing new . You felt it two years ago . I knew it from birth . On the 25th of August , two blasts killed more than a hundred people in the city of Mumbai . On the 7th of Sept. , a car bomb killed seven people in Srinagar . Most people here must not even have heard of this .

Such things keep happening , and no-one pays any attention . Do the American people seriously think they can finish terrorists just by army operations wherever and whenever they so choose ? We learnt long ago that you cannot do it that way . We are still trying , though , and without much success .

In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone . You cannot enlist support by invading anyone . Only through a global consensus of all affected nations , not a Coalition of the Willing (or America's puppets) , can this be contained . And the faster Americans realize this , the better for them and the lives of theis troops .

Again , I ask , how many here feel America can do this alone ?

[Harry Seldon]

No. We shouldn't have even tried. Damn Dubbya! Without the UN or at least a coalition this venture is doomed to failure.

[Drogue]

I agree with aneeshm, I think no nation can do it alone. But I also question whether a coalition of all affected nations could. That could do something, but I don't think we will ever get rid or terrorism entirely. I think containment and trying to reduce terrorism is the best option.

[MrFun]

Maybe the United Nations will be more willing to help once the United States starts paying back what it owes . . .

[aneeshm]

I admit nothing can ever eradicate terrorism , not even the coalition I mentioned . But it can provide the necessary resources to states who do not want terrorism , and have not the forces to fight it . It can also help if America and Israel change their attitute to terrorists somewhat . You cannot fight a war against them , as they dont occupy any one place . And Israels' record of atrocities and terrorising the Palestinians , justified or not , is not above reproof .

[Sava]

No... and the Bush admin is making a half-assed attempt at stopping it domestically, and with foreign military operations.

[aneeshm]

And also necessary is a change in the way the people of the affected countries view it . The more they are antagonised , the more they will retaliate , as they have no other way of striking back . Vietnam (or Iraq) , anyone ?

[SlowwHand]

The USA could do it alone, but shouldn't have to.
Thankfully, there are some honorable Brits, to go along with the jackass members of the worthless U.N.

[Q Classic]

a single stick can be broken easily.
many sticks, bound together, cannot.

one nation, fighting terrorism alone, will find itself outcast and broken.
i don't want america to end up broken.

[Arrian]

The best-case scenario is cooperation between the security organizations of various countries that see eye-to-eye (or thereabouts) on the problem. Trouble is, that sounds a lot easier than it is in practice. Hell, our own agencies seem to have plenty of trouble cooperating with one another, let alone with foreign ones.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

This is what I want to know . How could the USA do it alone . We've tried even in small places with huge forces , and not succeeded one bit . The world is simply too big .

[aneeshm]

Trouble is, that sounds a lot easier than it is in practice. Hell, our own agencies seem to have plenty of trouble cooperating with one another, let alone with foreign ones.

And past and present differences of opinion do seem rather a hindrance . Only when tolerating each other (and one's enemies) becomes preferable to tolerating terrorism will countries really help each other in eradicating this . Though India agrees principally with the US , we cannot but doubt the efficacy of their methods .

[Arrian]

To use an example pertinent to India:

In order to really get rid of terrorism in Kashmir, India needs Pakistan's cooperation. If the two governments worked together, they could effectively crack down on the terror groups. Does that happen? No, primarily (from what I can tell) because Pakistan at least sympathises with, if not outright supports, terror attacks against India controlled Kashmir.

So, in order to get rid of the terror problem, India would have to convince Pakistan to help. That, in turn, would require some sort of compromise on Kashmir. That doesn't appear very likely, at least for now. So the problem persists.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

If Pakistan would quit worrying about India, India would take care of themselves via food and train wrecks.

[aneeshm]

Any compromise on Kashmir would reduce the prominence of the military establishment , as it's raison d' etre is the Kashmir dispute and their projection of India as against Pakistan . It's not the people , but the rulers who want this to continue .

The Pakistani public is , in fact , tired of dictatorship and war , while being envious of our (relative) progress .