Rich, I went off with a group of S2K's to grab some food thinking that you were all coming too. Oops! Otherwise I would have said bye etc.

Anyway, I'm not concerned about Bali because 2 Americans were killed (that never even entered my mind) -- I'm concerned because 200 people were brutally killed while enjoying the nightlife. Yes, death is death, and no death is necessary (or should be), but in my mind, there's a big difference between death that comes as a result of a malicious act vs death that comes from a sad state of affairs such as over-population, not enough food, etc. Instinctively, I feel like we should be able to do something to stop malicious acts of terror. Whether or not we can accomplish that is, as you said, unfortunately a difficult task -- however, does that mean we should just not do anything? Does terrorism go away if you remain idle/hide? Or does it increase?

One thing is for sure, I never ever again want to wake up and turn on the TV to see thousands of people dying. And I can't even begin to put myself into the shoes of those who knew of someone who died in the WTC.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lig
[B]

You're a teacher?

 

Here's another scenario that's been troubling me:

Islamic extremist within our own borders decides he wants to end his life, and the lives of as many Americans as he can.

Islamic extremist goes onto the internet and does a google search for "anarchist's cookbook"

Islamic extremist visits a few drug stores and supermarkets and purchases bleach, potassium chloride, vaseline, and wax.

Islamic extremist buys or builds a blasting cap

Islamic extremist, armed with nothing but a backpack, walks into a crowded elementary school cafeteria, hits a switch with his thumb, and levels the entire building along with everyone in it.

Do we have a countermeasure against this sort of nonsense? NO.

Chances of a disaster like this occuring are likely to rise as the war with Iraq begins, but unfortunately we just don't have a choice in the matter. We can't ignore Saddam and the risk he poses to our country and others.

 

Perhaps afraid I would possibly teach the virtues of the "right wing" republican (instead of roll over and play dead). Not part of my gig.

Im so glad that the mods havent locked this thread though, even with the sensitive nature of the subjects They have been awesome to let us spar a little. Much respect!

 

I'd better answer some questions.



I never said that some dictators don't starve their people. North Korea is a perfect example of that .



I don't doubt that Bin Laden is willing to die (if he's not dead already) for what his vision of Islam happens to be. Sadly there are other individuals that are also willing to die for their cause.



Please don't misunderstand me. Saddam is an evil man and clearly has to go. I'd prefer an assassination over carpet bombing. We hopefully are planning for some post-Saddam stability and working with anti-Saddam forces within Iraq so they can take over and bring some reason to Iraq.



What scares me about that particular post is the overly broad generalizations. To be certain - there are many "leaders" around the world that are guilty of some of the things mentioned in that post but we in the U.S. aren't exactly pure when it comes to much of that stuff as well.



Foreign aid is an interesting topic. Personally I believe that we have quite a few problems here in America that need to be addressed with that money but nobody asked me...



Which of our "mortal enemies" is receiving substantial aid from the U.S.? I know that in the past we have supported dicatorships in exchange for oil/political capital/trade etc... I haven't seen a breakdown of where the money is going lately...



lig

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a few generalizations:

First, I don't think there are many rational and thoughtful people in this country and around the world that would not agree that Saddam is an unstable, cruel and violent person that is a danger to his country, the Middle East Region as well as the world as a whole.

Second, I don't think that many people could argue that many problems could be solved by removing Saddam from power and helping to stabilize the region much as the US has done in Afghanistan.

Those two points are well and good, but the question is when and how.

Saddam has been an evil person for a long time now. He has acted in his own interests without regard for the impact on others, including his own people and even his own family. This begs the question...why now? Why has it all of a sudden become a moral imperative to send in our young men and women to remove a man that we did not feel we had the "authority" to remove when we were there a decade ago? Has the evidence changed? Has the interpretation of the evidence changed? What's different?

The other question that I ask myself is what do we do once he is gone? If we think that this has any prayer of being a 100 days war where we can systematically attack and then walk away we are fooling ourselves. What sort of government will fill the void? Who will build that government? Who will ensure the safety and stability of that government until it can stand on it's own? If you think that solution won't include American men and women...and the possible loss of more lives...you are mistaken.

Also, if we go in unilaterally, who will we be fighting? Surely it won't just be the Iraqi soldiers.

We need a compelling reason, a thoughtful plan, and the conviction of our country and our allies behind us. Without that, the risks to our own men and women...and further instability in the region and the world...are the risks we take.

 

I think the reason as to "why now" was September 11, 2001 ; plus, Saddams history.
I have heard that one of our plans is to appoint an American general to lead the country after Saddam is removed. I think that will be another problem that will brew if that happens.
I'm sure the Pentagon is working on a thoughtful plan to end Saddam's tyranny once and for all with as few casualties to Americans as well as Iraqi citizens.

 

Lig,

First, I doubt OBL is/was in any hurry to meet allah. If he was, he would have been doing a whole lot more fighting than hiding....same with his cronies. Although he's happy to send some other shleps to do what he doesnt have the balls to.

I agree that some of my comments were a bit too broad, so lets look at a couple of our favorite terrorist organizations and where thier funding comes from. May I also add that I didnt intend to insinuate that the whole countries were "mortal enemies" of the US (although a large percentage of their citizens are anti-US) but are terrorist harboring nations that we give aid/trade. The governments of these countries do not "publicly" funnel monies to these groups, but fund the actions of terrorists and provide a safe haven for them. Others like Saudi Arabia pay the terorrists money so they dont attack their country.

This year the US donated over $400,000 of aid to iran after a June 22 earthquake.
The US has donated over $35,000,000 to lebanon this year
Egypt recieved over $2,000,000,000 last year in US aid.
Indonesia will receive over $50,000,000 this year in US aid.
Yemen will receive over $50,000,000 this year in US aid.
Palestine will receive over $75,000,000 this year in US aid
Last year we gave Lebanon $35,000,000 in US aid.
Clinton tried to approve $15,000,000,000 to Syria in 2000, the house and congress didnt go for it.

Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya- funded from Palestine and Saudi Arabia
Harakat ul-Mujahideen- funded by Egypt and Saudi Arabia
Egyptian al-Jihad- funded primarily from Egypt
Mujahedin-e Khalq- funded primarily by Iraq
Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction- funded by Iraq and limited assistance from Syria.
Al-Jama'ah al-Islamiyah al-Musallah algeria- funded by iran and sudan
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)-funded by Palestinian factions.
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)-funded by Lebanon and Libya


Its pretty clear that we will never agree on what to do to solve the problems in other countries. The wars between muslim and non-muslims have been going on for a couple thousand years. It is fight between people who want the world to be like it was 2 thousand years ago, and people who want to advance a civilization 10 years in 1 years time. There has never really been peace, and I guess there will not ever be peace in the world.
It seems the only way to curb extremism is to make the penalty for extremist actors so ghastly that they will not want to do it. What do muslim extremists love most? The trip to allah and thier family's lives. After they saw some of their comrades families suffer from thier actions, perhaps that would discourage them. Its not pretty, but what can you do? You cant pay them not to kill you.


Lig,

How do you suggest we avert the threat of terrorism in the future?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DarioManfretti
[B]I think the reason as to "why now" was September 11, 2001 ; plus, Saddams history.

 

I think this is the best question that has come up so far. I don't have an answer as to what WILL stop it, but I have a feeling that an internationally unpopular unilateral action by the United States against Iraq won't necessarily be a step in the right direction.

The key to that is unilateral. If we can rally support around the world (not just w/ Israel or UK) then we have a better chance of being able to manage any terrorist threat that such an action might bring about.