Can America finish terrorism alone ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
We all have to look to our own best interests . What gets me is the USA's persistent refusal to see their own . To finish one dictator , you support five . A few decades later , you have five more to deal with . AND five times the resistance and terrorism . Isn't this obvious ?

To finish with the Taliban we supported Pakistan, and a couple of central asian nasties. But we didnt go into afghanistan to create democracy as much as to deal with Al qaeeda - we had to do that, it wasnt an option. And, BTW perv is not nearly as bad a regime as the taliban.

In iraq where have we supported any dictators we hadng been supporting already - indeed going into Iraq makes us LESS dependent on Saudi Arabia.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by aneeshm
We all have to look to our own best interests . What gets me is the USA's persistent refusal to see their own . To finish one dictator , you support five . A few decades later , you have five more to deal with . AND five times the resistance and terrorism . Isn't this obvious ?

Maybe it thinks that it wll not have to deal with them.

Osama and his thugs were supported by the US though when Afganis were fighting the USSR.

Spread/plant winds and you will harvest tornadoes, (i dont know how to translate this little phrase better in english)

[aneeshm]

But that hardly justifies anything . Covert ops could have gotten rid of the Taliban better that any war . It would also not have involved bribing Musharraf . And don't forget , 9/11 was funded , at least in part , by saudi money .

Concerning Iraq , "He may be a SOB , but he's our SOB ."

[Arrian]

Not anymore, he's not.

And though we did business with him, he wasn't really "our SOB." He got even more goodies from the Soviets.

Dunno why I'm quibbling, though, since I generally agree that we shouldn't have "our SOBs" at all.

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

And it is true that we'll all have to look for our best interests. it's good to realize sometimes that our interests is for our neighboor to be ok too. a little thing i like about the european union is that it has come to this realization for its members. although it took attrocities to happen to finally accept this little fact.

[aneeshm]

And the translation is "You have sown the wind , now you shall reap the whirlwind ."

It's happening everywhere , you give me one dictator who is causing problems now , America have interfered in the past .

This is not to blame anyone , just that change is required . You have to consider the people whom you liberate .

[Flubber]

Re: Can America finish terrorism alone ?

Originally posted by aneeshm
In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone .

I agree. In fact I don't think terrorism could be eliminated even if every nation on earth was working against it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Eliminating its source will take a long time but it is not unfeasable IMHO.

Punching wildly at the water will not do it though. You have to go to the source of the river and stop it.

What's the use in celebrating the Bali killer conviction if there's 1 million other people behind him ready to take his place?


I think this fundamentalism is a new (rather sick) "ideology" like many others before it. Its emergance is why the world will not be the same again. And it had been predicted by bright minds of sociopolitical sciences a long time ago.

But it mainly has to do with the US. Other people have other problems, many times the US is one of them.

I'll be sure to remember Chile as well as WTC tomorrow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
But that hardly justifies anything . Covert ops could have gotten rid of the Taliban better that any war .
."

I doubt that very much. As it was we tried using covert ops with the Pashtuns in the South. Seems they werent willing to turn on the Taliban till they saw the Taliban actually losing militarily.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Eliminating its source will take a long time but it is not unfeasable IMHO.

Punching wildly at the water will not do it though. You have to go to the source of the river and stop it.

What's the use in celebrating the Bali killer conviction if there's 1 million other people behind him ready to take his place?

.

cause the bali killer had a strategy. to attack the indonesian economy - to fight against economic growth and democracy, the very things that will stop the river at its source. If the Indon economy collapses, there will be more than 1 million to take his place. If it improves, and indon becomes better, there will be far fewer.

[Bereta_Eder]

for the economy to get better, maybe some "superpowers" and some others should stop exploiting it and its rich people in that country not getting richer while the poor get poorer?

who are sponsoring terrorism?

[aneeshm]

Though I'm not directly blaming the US , even they have to admit thay have funded half their own problems . Osama , Saddam , and better believe me now , Musharraf in the future , not to forget Saudi Arabia , have heen key people/nations , and all have gotten help from the US one way or another .

Whan I say covert ops , I mean assassination of the terrorist leadership . War makes the terrorists seem important to the rest of the world .

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
for the economy to get better, maybe some "superpowers" and some others should stop exploiting it and its rich people in that country not getting richer while the poor get poorer?

who are sponsoring terrorism?

Of course you consider setting up factories and providing jobs to be explotation.

[aneeshm]

Just for the record , saddam restored power within one month of gulf war 1 . The americans ave not done it even now (ot fully) .

[DanS]

Saddam hadn't restored power fully 12 years after the end of Gulf War I.